Universal vs Accessible Design

Accessible designs are solutions that create alternate user stories for occupants with physical or psychological requirements not experienced by the average, non-disabled user. Essentially, accessible solutions are substitutions to the intended experience and often require more effort or thought from the user needing accommodation. 

Examples of accessible solutions include alternate building pathways with ramps instead of stairs, braille restaurant menus, or requiring ASL translations for spoken words. Accessible solutions are always better than no solution, but meeting the bare minimum of equitable spaces should not be where solution development stops. 

In the grand scheme of human civilization and the built environment, accessibility has lagged behind traditional design. Since the conception of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, these solutions have gained much more attention and are implemented by law across the United States.

Regardless of its legal legitimacy, the actual implementation and use of accessible solutions are often ignored, disregarded, or worked around. Accessible solutions highlight the divide between occupants with specific disabilities and do not solve the overarching equity problem for public use spaces. Accessible design is concerned primarily with the result of the solution and less concerned with the processes required to reach the goal; this is truly a fatal flaw when used as a design philosophy in practice. 

(Sattler, Fleck, 2022)

In contrast, Universal Designs are solutions that allow all potential users the same operant experience. Universal solutions erase the need for alternate options; all users interact with the design in the same way(s) and share nearly identical actions when applied. There is no segregation or separation with UD; all users are treated equally and considered with the same amount of sway as the able-bodied experience would have. 

Universal Design is a much higher threshold to accomplish and requires extensive ingenuity to seamlessly blend all user stories back into a single shared experience. 

1. Equitable use which provides the same means of use for all users and keeps those means identical if possible, avoiding segregation or stigmatizing anyone.

2. Flexibility in use: provide choice, ambidextrous options, and allow adaptability. 

3. Simple and intuitive use by eliminating unnecessary complexity, maintaining consistency, and creating effective prompting. 

4. Providing quality perceptible information. That includes different modes of communication, adequate contrast, and maximum legibility. 

5. Allowing tolerance for error. This includes eliminating all potentially risky outcomes or hazards in the design to prioritize user safety. 

6. Low physical effort, which allows users to use the space efficiently and comfortably. 

7. Size and Space for Approach and Use. This includes many liminal spaces needed to accommodate disabled occupants and equipment.

(Rosetti, 2005)

Universal Design is not just about meeting minimum standards or legal requirements; it is a philosophy that promotes inclusivity, independence, and quality of life for all individuals, regardless of their abilities or needs.

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require Universal Design; "General requirement: Businesses must provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to access the goods or services that they offer." (ADA Title III, 2023)

(Battle, 2023)

To illustrate the differences in the philosophies, basic solutions in ordinary buildings work well. ADA is far more popular, easy, and cheap, making it the quick solution for many built environments. Universal design is much harder to come by but is almost always the superior solution. Elevation changes are one of the more blatantly dividing solutions, stairs vs ramps in public spaces for ambulatory vs. disabled bodies.

For example, the building I work in has a ramp as the entrance threshold instead of a 3" step abruptly at the doorframe. The solution of the ramp is Universal and allows all levels of mobility to access without a deviation from the majority's pathway. However, the front door of this building is electric but not automatic. An occupant in a wheelchair must approach the elevation raised differently than the ambulatory occupant; the user who uses a wheelchair will press the door open button and wait for the door's mechanics to make the path accessible, not universally. If the door were motion-censored/automatic, all users would have the same experience when passing through the doorframe, creating a Universal Solution.

Prioritizing accessibility is always crucial in designing the built environment, but the shift to Universal Solutions is for the future betterment of humanity and society. Understanding the differences and the relationships between these philosophies is only the first step in creating a more equitable and inclusive world for all of humanity.

Refrences:

Introduction to the Americans with disabilities act. ADA.gov. (2023, November 20). https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/

Rossetti, R. (2017). Universal Design Toolkit. Rossetti Enterprises Inc.

Spatial equity: Inclusive design. Payette. (2022, August 22). https://payette.com/equitable-design/spatial-equity-inclusive-design/