Charlotte,
I have just completed some research on Inclusive Design, and how the
problems related to the ageing eye are address therein. I found two main
points, the first being that the Inclusive Design literature engaging with
the topic (for example. Keates, S., and J. Clarkson. *Countering Design
Exclusion*. London: Springer-Verlag, 2003.; Clarkson, J., et al., eds.
*Inclusive
Design*. London: Springer-Verlag, 2003.) doesn't address the issues in its
entirety, and that the information need to develop a through understanding
of the topic is not very accessible and is often in complex language riddled
with terminology (eg."Are the age-related spatiotemporal threshold deficits
reflected in suprathreshold visual performance?", Tulunat-Kassey, U., J. N.
Ver Hoeve, and C. Terkla-McGrane. "Threshold and Suprathreshold
Spatiotemporal Response Throughout Adulthood." *Journal of the Optical
Society of America* 5.12 (1988): 10.)
This second point especially suggest that the information required to
implement inclusive design practices into the design process is in itself
not inclusive. By promoting accessible information, perhaps this can in turn
lead to a wider understanding of the problems, and thus an increase in the
adoption of accessible design practice.
While I agree with David in the benefits of regulation, I have read a few
documents (none of which i can seem to remember at this point, but can do
some digging if anyone is interested), that argue the dictorial manner of
regulation equates to equally exciting design solutions. Of particular
interest personally is the interpretation of legislation (specifically
related to design), such as the American Disabilities Act (ADA), and how one
can bend the rules. One particular public health institution ignored the
suggestion within the ADA, but used the Raynes Rail (
http://www.raynesassociates.com/rail_features.html) and passed inspection
with flying colours.
I would also argue that most companies realise the importance of their
customers, and thus make some effort to understand them. I think the failing
here is that they look to their main customers, and not those on the
periphery of the market. These customers, who often use the product
differently to the mainstream customer, can be a goldmine of knowledge on
how to improve a product to address the needs of a broader market.
Your second point, on accessible as an undesirable sale characteristic, is
completely on the dot. There have been examples of products marketed as
being easy for old people to use failing miserably, only to be rebranded,
and relaunched, with the marketing avoiding accessibility, to have massive
success.
On your third point, i think in many situations there is value, both
economically and in a design sense, to take existing products and reverse
engineer them, but with a focus on the userrather than the product. By
understanding why users cannot use a product, steps can be taken to reduce
the level of ability required to use products. Good Grips is a great example
of this http://www.oxo.com.
I digress. I believe "building accessibility" can be best achieved by a
general awareness of the problems that typically excluded users from
enjoying the benefits of a product or service. Thus, informed decision can
be made during the design process, rather than ones which unintentionally
exclude potential users.
Simon Lawry
Design Studies
University of Otago
Dunedin
New Zealand
,
On 10/16/07, Charlotte Magnusson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> ...What this means--and here I am suggesting that you may be asking the
>
> wrong question-- is that even if you identify all the 'reasons' why
> 'stuff may not be accessible', you might not be any nearer making
> them so. (David)
>
> Thanks everyone for your thoughts - it is great to get more perspectives
> on this:-). Concerning the above I'm not really after the reasons as
> such - my thought was just that if I had a better understanding of the
> reasons, I could put my effort "in the right place" - i.e if one looks
> at methods or improving methods to try to "build accessibility" into the
> development process - what kind of changes would have the largest
> payoff....?
>
> And one such thing may be awareness of the problems of course - at my
> department the design students have a short course on this (the
> engineering students too, but for them it is not compulsory), which
> makes us hope for improvement on this point in the long run:-)
>
> Best wishes!
> /Charlotte
>
> Charlotte Magnusson, Assistant Professor
> Certec, Division of Rehabilitation Engineering Research
> Department of Design Sciences
> Lund University
> Sweden
> tel. +46 46 222 4097
> fax. +46 46 222 4431
>
>
|