 |
 |
The discussion about Universal Design, like the discussion about context, also raises some worries about what we want to mean by Universal Design, and some other related terms. The term 'Universal Design' was invented in the USA and is most widely used there to refer to the attempts to design things that are useful and usable by all kinds of people, including the young, the old, and the variously disabled. In Europe the term 'Design for All' is more commonly used to mean essentially the same thing, and both in the USA and Europe (and I imagine in other parts of the world) the concepts and practice of Design for All or Universal Design has become politically fashionable---due to the fast growing proportion of over 65s in all European and North American populations. Another term that is sometimes used is 'Barrier Free Design', again, more so in the USA than in Europe, in my experience. It is supposed to mean designs which do not present barriers to their use by different kinds of people. However, although trying to design things so that more kinds of people can use them is clearly and important and good idea, all these terms for it are horrible and bad. There are and cannot be any true designs for ALL, nor designs which present no barriers to at least some people who want to use them, and, worst of all, no real design can be Universal---which means usable anywhere and by anything in the whole Universe! Other related terms like 'Universal Access' and 'Universal Service' which have also recently begun to be used are equally silly. When I first started working in the area of Design for All I didn't notice how bad these terms are, as I think most people don't. But that is because I am not disabled or old (yet), and nor are most people. How bad these terms are was only made clear to me when a deaf person asked me how can anything be a design for ALL. Of course, I had to admit that nothing really could be, but that this is what we call this idea for trying to design better things. His response was that my reply was very typical of the kind of arrogance that disabled people and their communities have been subjected to for far too long, "if a design is not for ALL", he continued, "you should not say it is." He, and others who joined in the discussion, said that for them, it's not just Over Sell to use these terms, it is basically dishonest. And, as yet another person said, it shows once again that the people without disabilities, but who have the power, still have not understood what they need to do to understand what the real needs of disabled and elderly people are. This was a very sobering experience, and I have received many similar expressions from other disabled people since then, though not put quite so strongly. This discussion with the deaf group was, by the way, all conducted via a translator, who translated my Spanish in to (Spanish) signing for them, and their signing into Spanish for me. It was one of the most animated discussions I have ever been involved in: animated in a number of sense. Tim Smithers, University of Navarra & CEIT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%