Well, there was no designer in that anecdote, and the teller of the
story is the administrator trying to cover his tush.
So, who knows what "the disabled guy" told them? You don't have that
information reliably. (Don't drop epistemology just 'cause this is
outside of the library!) That building manager, and the workers who
carried out the project, almost surely had never seen accessibility
defined in that manner. Sometimes the cabinet directly under a sink is
made to be removable....NOT all of them!.
In any case, in a dorm or any large multitenant building (aparement,
offices, etc.), when those base cabinets were removed -- standard
procedure would be to store them in the basement, for future reuse. So
this "manager" SHOULD have put back a cabinet or two, when you stated
your problem.
This is a story about "design" in the broadest sense of the term, (as in
"what happens, form-wise") that happens by non-designers, but alas, it
is NOT a "universal design" story, since there was no serious attempt to
be either universal, or do design. Just some universal-ish-sounding
excuses after the fact.
--
Recent posts on this list seem to compress accessibility, universal
design, the topic of design in general, and theory. All books dealing
with design aren't theorizing it.
I haven't read all of those books, and thanks for the ones on the list I
hadn't heard of, but I would be extremely surprised if they all
"theorized" about Universal Design / "UD". I would also be extremely
surprised if half of them even dealt with the topic of "UD" at all..
"Accessibility" maybe, "UD" I doubt it.
Anything "UD" is "accessible", but much of what's "accessible" is not
"UD". "UD" is a goal of one form for the highest possible percentage of
the population, for AB & people with as many disabilities as can be
designed for. Avoiding the back-door entry. The water fountain open
underneath, that easily adjusts up and down, etc. There is no claim
that this is always achievable, but there are examples... and of course
if a designer sets this as the objective, the odds of getting that sort
of solution are higher, than if the problem's definition does not
include favoring a universal solution.
I think you'll find what those books do touch on is "accessibility", and
theorizing it not at the level of how to achieve it either design wise
or otherwise, but just from a distance, looking at how thinly & perhaps
unevenly scattered it is in the landscape. To observe that it's often
an inaccessible world, isn't to theorize about UD.
"Accessible" is only "universal design", if it defines the problem, and
achieves a solution, in a way that springs from the anti-specialization
& therefor anti-segregationist direction of disabled rights movement
thinking. Thus, for example, there is no such thing as a universally
designed bus (unless somewhere the design is -- the bus stops are raised
platforms like some trollies use; so everybody enters the same door, on
the same surface)., there are only different degrees-of-accessible
busses. Some can enter either door, others can enter only one door,
only after waiting for the ramp mechanism, the driver, etc. This is not
a value judgement, it's just being clear about what the 2 terms mean.
New York City's City Hall is "accessible" to those who don't climb
steps, only through a basement side door entrance; therefor it's
"accessible", but not in a "UD" manner. The new pavement of bumpy
cobblestones that all must pass over to go through the security checks,
a pavement which is a problem (shaking & traction difficulty), for
people with chairs and especially scooters with smaller wheels, means
that "access" to the building is also inferior in terms of safety, is
inferior in terms of both insult and potential injury.
The new Tokyo City Hall in which everyone can enter through the same
smooth plaza, through front doors (I'm assuming some / all of them have
electric operators), into the same front lobby, would be "universal
design"... at least in terms of entry.
Though there are many examples of people who are not professional
designers coming up with good designs (an area it happens, I've
researched & lectured on), that dormitory anecdote is not one of them.
It's just a very interesting story about an incompetent educational
Facility Manager*** trying to fake it.
*** Some "Facility Managers" are trained, sometimes in colleges offering
specialized porgrams (like NewYork University), and in some areas
there's even the beginnings of some sort of professional certification.
One suspects that this dorm "manager" had no training, and no prior
qualifications of any kind, before being given that position in that
school.
Jim Davis
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|