The Typewriter
Built so one blind woman could write a legible letter.
Read case study →Inclusive design starts from a claim that sounds obvious and turns out to be radical: disability is not a property of a person, it is a mismatch between a person and an environment somebody designed. A building with stairs and no ramp does not accommodate a wheelchair user badly. It excludes them, and it does so because of decisions that could have gone another way at little cost had anyone thought about it early enough.
The practical case is easy to make and worth making. Curb cuts were fought for by wheelchair users and are now used by anyone with a suitcase, a pram or a delivery trolley. Captions were built for deaf viewers and are now switched on in half the world's living rooms. Designing for the edges of a user population tends to improve the product for the middle, which is why "design for extremes" appears here as a strategy rather than an act of charity. Pay particular attention to objective 1.2.2, which admits that inclusive design is not always possible. Being able to say clearly where the limits are and why is a far more sophisticated answer than insisting everything can be made universal. This topic also connects tightly back to the percentile and physiology work in A1.1.
Students must be able toDiscuss how inclusive design requires designing universally accessible products for all users, including those with physical, sensory and cognitive impairments.
Inclusive design (also called universal design, accessible design, or design for all) is an approach that removes barriers and ensures products and environments are usable by everyone, regardless of age, ability, or physical or cognitive difference. The goal is mainstream products that work for all users, not a parallel range of "special needs" versions that stigmatise users and add cost.
The term Universal Design was coined by architect Ron Mace in 1998. The Centre for Universal Design at North Carolina State University defines it as: "the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design."
Inclusive design extends User-Centred Design (UCD) by deliberately including community members who might otherwise be overlooked: the elderly, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and those who are temporarily injured. The seven principles of Universal Design are:
- Equitable use: the design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities
- Flexibility in use: accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities
- Simple and intuitive use: easy to understand regardless of experience, knowledge, language or concentration level
- Perceptible information: communicates necessary information effectively regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities
- Tolerance for error: minimises hazards and adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions
- Low physical effort: can be used efficiently and comfortably with minimal fatigue
- Size and space for approach and use: appropriate size and space is provided regardless of the user's body size, posture or mobility
Legislation: Many countries legally require designers to consider users with disabilities:
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1990): US federal law covering physical access, employment and product accessibility
- Disability Discrimination Act (1992): Australian legislation requiring reasonable adjustment for people with disabilities
- Similar legislation exists in Canada, South Africa and India
Case Study
Students must be able toDiscuss how the average person correlates to the 50th percentile adult and child, and how it is not always appropriate to design for the average person.
Inclusive design is a goal, not always a guarantee. Two realities place practical limits on how far universal solutions can extend.
The problem with designing for the average: Anthropometric data is reported as percentiles. The 50th percentile is the median: the value below which 50% of the measured population falls. Designing for the "average" person seems logical, but the Union soldiers census of 1850 illustrates the problem: the average height was 5 feet 8 inches, yet it is unlikely that any individual soldier was exactly that height across all relevant body dimensions simultaneously. The statistical average is not a real person.
Body dimensions are not linearly correlated: Someone with short arms does not necessarily have short legs. A person might be 5th percentile in arm reach but 95th percentile in torso height. This means:
- There is no such thing as an "average person" in any practically meaningful sense
- A product designed for the 50th percentile in every dimension will fit very few real people precisely
- Designing for one dimension in isolation can create problems in another
The 5th–95th percentile range: In practice, designers target the central 90% of the population. This means the product must be usable by the smallest plausible user (5th percentile in the critical dimension) and the largest (95th percentile). A seat, for example, needs adjustability to serve both the smallest and tallest users within this range.
Users outside this range (below the 5th or above the 95th percentile) will always require specialist or adapted solutions. This is not a failure of inclusive design but an honest acknowledgement of its practical limits. Designers must identify where the boundary is drawn and be prepared to justify it.
The anthropometric data and percentile method underlying this analysis are introduced in A1.1 Ergonomics.
Students must be able toDiscuss the advantages of designing for extremes when designing products for a general population, and identify where a design for extremes strategy has been used.
When a fully universal solution is not achievable, the design for extremes strategy offers a powerful alternative. Rather than designing for a middle-ground average, designers target users with the most demanding needs: those with physical, sensory or cognitive impairments. The key insight is that solutions developed for extreme users frequently become innovations that benefit the entire population.
This is known as the curb-cut effect: kerb ramps installed for wheelchair users are also used by parents with pushchairs, delivery workers with trolleys, cyclists and people with temporary injuries. The solution built for the hardest case improves the experience for everyone.
Examples from the chapter:
- Oxo Good Grips vegetable peeler: Sam Farber developed the peeler after watching his wife, who had arthritis, struggle to grip a standard peeler. The arthritic hand (the extreme user) required less grip force, a non-slip surface and pressure distributed away from the finger joints. The solution was an oversized handle made from Santoprene (a thermoplastic elastomer) with a scooped-out body and fins for thumb and forefinger, usable with a palm grip rather than a finger grip. The peeler became comfortable for everyone and entered the MoMA permanent collection in 1994. Its principles now appear across the entire Good Grips range and throughout the kitchen tools industry.
- Voice commands and text-to-speech (TTS): Developed for people with visual impairments and dyslexia, TTS reads digital text aloud. The hard constraint (the user cannot read a screen) forced a complete rethinking of human-device interaction. The result is used by millions without any disability for hands-free operation while driving, cooking or multitasking. Virtual assistants (Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa) are mainstream products built entirely on accessibility-driven innovation.
- Tactile pavements: Raised textured surfaces on walkways and platform edges warn visually impaired pedestrians (detectable by cane or foot) that they are approaching a hazard. They also alert any distracted pedestrian nearing a road crossing or platform edge.
- Rumble strips (Audio Tactile Lane Markings): Raised patterns along road edges generate audible and tactile warnings when a tyre crosses them. Designed primarily to alert drowsy or distracted drivers, they provide an additional safety layer for all drivers on long journeys or in adverse weather.
- Braille-like dots on Australian polymer banknotes: Tactile features help visually impaired users identify denominations and benefit all users through a consistent, identifiable surface feature.
Why design for extremes works:
- Hard constraints imposed by extreme users force genuinely new thinking rather than incremental improvement of the status quo
- Solutions that satisfy the most demanding users automatically satisfy less demanding users too
- It future-proofs products: ageing populations, temporary injuries and changing user profiles all shift today's "extreme" toward tomorrow's mainstream
The anthropometric data behind sizing for extreme users, the 5th and 95th percentile ranges, is covered in A1.1 Ergonomics.
Discussion
Find the next curb cut
Every example above, kerb ramps, the OXO peeler, text-to-speech, tactile paving, is now a familiar, well-worn case. That familiarity is a trap: reaching for the same handful of examples in an exam answer signals that you've memorised a list, not that you understand why designing for extremes actually works.
Find your own example: a product or feature originally built for a specific impairment that you or people around you now use without a second thought, and be ready to explain why the extreme constraint, not just a general desire to be inclusive, forced a better design. Then find a counter-example: a case where designing for an extreme user made the product worse for everyone else, or where a company bolted on an "accessibility feature" that didn't actually solve the real problem. What separates the two?
Ten questions covering Universal Design principles, percentile ranges, legislation and the design for extremes strategy. Select one answer per question, then click "Check all answers" to see your score and the explanations.
Q1 · 1.2.1 Universal Design
Which statement best captures what universal design asks of a product?
Universal design targets the widest possible audience in a single mainstream product, regardless of age or ability. The standard definition is design usable by all people to the greatest extent possible without needing adaptation. A separate adapted version fails that test twice over, since it stigmatises the people who need it and adds the cost of a second product line.
Q2 · 1.2.1 Universal Design
Which principle of universal design requires that necessary information reaches the user regardless of ambient conditions or their sensory abilities?
Perceptible information is the principle behind repeating a message across more than one sensory channel, such as pairing a warning colour with a symbol or a sound with a vibration. Equitable use concerns whether the design serves diverse abilities without singling anyone out, and low physical effort concerns fatigue during use.
Q3 · 1.2.1 Universal Design
Inclusive design aims at mainstream products rather than a separate range of "special needs" versions mainly because separate versions:
A parallel product line marks its users out as different and is usually more expensive, because it is made in far smaller volumes. The goal is one product that works for everyone, which is why inclusive design extends user-centred design by deliberately including people who are otherwise overlooked: older users, pregnant women, disabled people and the temporarily injured.
Q4 · 1.2.1 Universal Design
Accessibility legislation exists in many countries and shapes what a designer must consider. What does such legislation typically require?
The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in Australia and the Equality Act 2010 in the UK differ in detail, but all turn on reasonable provision rather than a guarantee of universal usability. For a designer this sets a floor, not a target: meeting the legal minimum is not the same as designing inclusively, and the wider percentile question still has to be answered.
Q5 · 1.2.2 Designing for Percentiles
Why is there no meaningfully "average" person to design for?
Someone can be 5th percentile in arm reach and 95th percentile in torso height at the same time. The Union soldiers census of 1850 makes the point: the average height was five feet eight inches, but no individual soldier was average across every relevant dimension at once. A product built to the 50th percentile in every dimension therefore fits almost nobody precisely.
Q6 · 1.2.2 Designing for Percentiles
Which percentile range do designers normally target?
This range covers the central 90% of the population, so the product must work for the smallest plausible user in the critical dimension and for the largest. A seat, for example, needs adjustment to serve both ends of that band rather than a single fixed setting.
Q7 · 1.2.2 Designing for Percentiles
Which statement about the limits of inclusive design is most accurate?
Naming the limit is a more sophisticated answer than claiming everything can be made universal. Excluding the outermost 5% at each end is a deliberate compromise, not an oversight, and stating where the line is drawn and why is what an examiner is looking for.
Q8 · 1.2.3 Design for Extremes
Text-to-speech and voice control were developed for users who could not read a screen, and are now used by millions of people while driving or cooking. This illustrates:
The constraint could not be met by enlarging or brightening text, so it forced a different interaction model entirely. That is the structural reason the strategy works: a hard constraint prevents incremental tinkering with the status quo. Kerb ramps, built for wheelchair users and now used with prams, suitcases and trolleys, gave the effect its name.
Q9 · 1.2.3 Design for Extremes
A vegetable peeler is developed around the constraint that its users have arthritis. Which set of features does that constraint demand, and what is the wider effect?
Arthritis rules out the thin smooth metal handle entirely and forces an oversized soft handle worked with a palm grip rather than a pinch. The resulting tool is easier for everyone, which is the design for extremes argument: a constraint that looks narrow produces a solution the general population prefers. OXO Good Grips is the standard example, and it reshaped the whole kitchen tools market.
Q10 · 1.2.3 Design for Extremes
A writing machine is built for a single blind user so that they can produce letters legible to sighted readers, with no market in mind. Its mechanism later becomes standard office equipment. This sequence supports the argument that:
The constraint was absolute: the user could not check the page, so the mechanism had to place characters reliably without sight. Solving that produced the typewriter, and carbon paper arrived as a by-product of needing to transfer ink consistently. Designing at the edge of the population removes the compromises that a comfortable average user would have tolerated, and the result is usually better for everyone.
Every Paper 2 question is attached to a product. Nothing here can be answered from memory alone: read the case study first, then answer the parts in order. The tariff tells you how many creditable points to make, and the command term tells you what kind of point counts. Write your answer before you open either panel, then mark yourself against the markscheme rather than against the example.
Case study
Tactile paving is a surface laid into a pavement whose raised pattern can be read through a shoe sole or a long cane. Different patterns carry different meanings, and the system was developed in Japan in 1965 before being adopted internationally.
Table 1: Three tactile paving patterns
| Pattern | Form | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Blister | Flat-topped domes, 25 mm across, 5 mm high | Road crossing ahead, kerb removed |
| Corduroy | Rounded bars across the direction of travel | Hazard: steps, level crossing, ramp |
| Lozenge | Flat-topped diamonds | Platform edge on a light rail line |
The patterns are laid in a colour contrasting with the surrounding pavement.
(a) State the limiting aspect of user capability that tactile paving is designed to address, see Table 1. [1]
(b) Outline why the three patterns in Table 1 differ in form rather than only in position. [2]
(c) Explain how tactile paving benefits users beyond the group it was designed for, see Table 1. [3]
Example answer
(a) Visual accuracy, including low vision and blindness.
(b) A user reading the surface through a cane or a shoe sole receives only the pattern, with no context to tell them which hazard it refers to, so the meaning has to be carried by the form itself. Distinct shapes let one surface encode several different warnings, and the difference between domes, bars and diamonds is large enough to be told apart through a shoe sole, which a difference in position would not be.
(c) The paving is a tactile signal and a visual one at the same time, so anyone can use it. The colour contrast marks a crossing point for a sighted pedestrian looking at a phone, and for a driver it makes the crossing visible from the road. The corduroy pattern warns of steps underfoot, which is useful to someone carrying a box they cannot see past, a parent pushing a buggy or a person in an unfamiliar station in a hurry. Removing the kerb at a blister crossing is the clearest case, because it was done so that a wheelchair user could cross, and it now serves buggies, suitcases, delivery trolleys and anyone with a walking aid. This is the general pattern in inclusive design: a solution developed for people at the extreme of a capability range removes effort for everyone in it.
Markscheme
(a) • Visual accuracy ✓
• Sight loss / blindness / low vision ✓
Award [1] for the correct limiting aspect of user capability up to [1 max].
(b) Inclusive design ensures products address the needs of the widest possible audience regardless of age or ability.
• The user receives only the pattern, with no context to identify the hazard ✓
• The meaning must be carried by the form itself ✓
• Distinct shapes let one surface encode several different warnings ✓
• Domes, bars and diamonds are distinguishable through a shoe sole or cane tip ✓
• Position cannot be perceived by a user who cannot see the layout ✓
• Different hazards need different responses, so they must be separable ✓
• A single pattern in different places would be ambiguous ✓
Award [1] for each relevant brief point on why the patterns differ in form up to [2 max].
(c) Designers often use a design for extremes strategy to develop solutions suitable for those with impairments which are also appropriate for the general population.
• The paving carries a tactile and a visual signal at once, so any user can read it ✓
• Colour contrast marks a crossing for a distracted sighted pedestrian ✓
• It makes the crossing point visible to a driver from the road ✓
• Corduroy warns of steps underfoot to someone carrying a box they cannot see past ✓
• Useful to a person in an unfamiliar station moving quickly ✓
• Removing the kerb for a wheelchair user also serves buggies, suitcases and trolleys ✓
• It benefits anyone using a walking aid or with reduced mobility ✓
• It works in darkness and poor weather, when everyone's visual accuracy is reduced ✓
• A solution designed for the extreme of a capability range removes effort across the whole range ✓
Award [1] for each relevant reason / cause explaining how the paving benefits users beyond the intended group up to [3 max]. Award a maximum of [2] where the response gives examples without identifying the design for extremes principle.
Case study
A kettle is filled at a tap and poured into a cup. A full 1.7 litre kettle weighs about 2.3 kg, and pouring requires it to be lifted, tilted and held steady over a small target.
A manufacturer developed an alternative: a fixed reservoir stays on the worktop and dispenses a measured volume into a cup placed beneath it at the press of a button. Nothing is lifted.
Table 2: Force and grip demands compared
| Task | Conventional kettle | Dispenser |
|---|---|---|
| Mass lifted | 2.3 kg | 0 kg |
| Grip required | Sustained, one hand on handle | Momentary press |
| Held steady for | 6–10 s while pouring | 0 s |
| Consequence of a slip | Scald | None |
| Worktop area used | 0.03 m² | 0.06 m² |
| Price | £30 | £130 |
(a) State one limiting aspect of user capability that makes pouring a full kettle difficult, see Table 2. [1]
(b) Identify two groups of users for whom the consequence of a slip in Table 2 is most serious. [2]
(c) Analyse why the dispenser has not replaced the conventional kettle despite its advantages, see Table 2. [3]
Example answer
(a) Reduced strength, since 2.3 kg must be lifted and held away from the body.
(b) Older users with reduced grip strength or tremor, and users with a condition affecting muscle control such as arthritis or Parkinson's.
(c) The dispenser is better on every measure of capability and worse on the measures that drive a purchase. It costs more than four times as much, and a kettle is a product most people replace only when the old one fails, so a £130 device competes against a £30 one that most buyers regard as adequate. It also takes twice the worktop area in the room where space is most contested, which is a real cost in a small kitchen. The deeper obstacle is that the benefit is invisible to the person choosing. Someone with full grip strength does not experience pouring a kettle as difficult, so the dispenser appears to solve a problem they do not have, and inclusive design features are typically bought only once the buyer needs them. That produces a market where the product is positioned as specialist equipment rather than as a kettle, which narrows its sales, keeps its volume low and holds the price high, so the cost barrier and the perception barrier reinforce each other.
Markscheme
(a) Students must be able to explain limiting aspects of user capabilities, including visual accuracy, colour perception, strength, fatigue, muscle control and hearing thresholds.
• Reduced strength ✓
• Reduced grip strength ✓
• Reduced muscle control / tremor ✓
• Fatigue ✓
Award [1] for one relevant limiting aspect of user capability up to [1 max].
(b) • Older users with reduced grip strength ✓
• Users with arthritis or a condition affecting muscle control ✓
• Users with a tremor, for example from Parkinson's ✓
• Children ✓
• Users with reduced sensation who would not react quickly to a scald ✓
• Wheelchair users, for whom spilled water falls onto the lap ✓
• Users with low vision who cannot see the cup precisely ✓
Award [1] for each relevant group identified up to [2 max]. Do not credit two descriptions of the same group.
(c) Inclusive design is not always possible, and commercial factors limit its adoption.
Cost:
• £130 against £30 is more than four times the price ✓
• A kettle is usually replaced only when the old one fails, so the comparison is against a working product ✓
• Most buyers regard the conventional kettle as adequate ✓
Space:
• Twice the worktop area, in the room where space is most contested ✓
Perception:
• A user with full grip strength does not experience pouring as difficult ✓
• The dispenser appears to solve a problem the buyer does not have ✓
• Inclusive features are typically bought only once the buyer needs them ✓
• Buyers may not anticipate their own future needs ✓
Market effects:
• Positioning as specialist equipment narrows the market ✓
• Low volume keeps unit cost and price high ✓
• The cost barrier and the perception barrier reinforce each other ✓
• Being marked out as a product for disabled users deters buyers who do not identify that way ✓
Award [1] for each distinct guiding element / structure identified in why the dispenser has not replaced the kettle up to [3 max]. Award a maximum of [2] where the response argues only from price.
Case study · part 1
A cinema chain is refurbishing a screen. The auditorium seats 240 in a raked layout, with a single accessible row at the back reached from the entrance corridor. Wheelchair spaces are provided by removing two seats at the end of that row.
(a) Identify two ways the current wheelchair provision limits the experience compared with other seats. [2]
Case study · part 2
The chain offers three accessibility features, each on selected screenings.
Table 3: Accessibility screenings offered
| Feature | How it works | Availability |
|---|---|---|
| Subtitled screening | Captions burned into the picture, visible to all | 1 screening per film per week, usually weekday afternoon |
| Audio description | Narration of on-screen action through a headset | Any screening, headsets from the desk |
| Relaxed screening | Lights raised, sound lowered, free movement permitted | 1 screening per month |
(b) Outline why the availability of the subtitled screening limits its usefulness, see Table 3. [2]
Case study · part 3
Audio description is delivered through a headset issued at the desk. Subtitles are burned into the picture for everyone in the auditorium.
(c) Describe why audio description can be offered at any screening but subtitles cannot, see Table 3. [2]
Case study · part 4
The chain is considering personal subtitle glasses that display captions to the wearer alone, allowing any screening to be subtitled. They cost €900 a pair, need charging and cleaning between uses, and some users report eye strain.
(d) Evaluate the subtitle glasses as a solution to the problem identified in Table 3. [4]
Example answer
(a) The viewing position is fixed at the back with no choice of where to sit, and a wheelchair user cannot sit among a group of friends because the spaces are at the end of one row.
(b) One weekday afternoon screening a week means the film can only be seen at a time most people are at work or school, so access is granted in principle and withdrawn in practice. It also removes the social element, since a deaf viewer cannot go with hearing friends at a time that suits them and cannot see a film on its opening weekend when everyone else does.
(c) Audio description is delivered to one person through a headset, so it changes nothing for anyone else in the auditorium and can therefore run at every screening at no cost to other viewers. Subtitles are burned into the shared picture, so switching them on changes the film for all 240 people, and because some viewers object the cinema treats a subtitled screening as a separate event rather than as a default.
(d) The glasses solve the structural problem precisely. The reason subtitles are rationed is that they are shared, and the glasses make them personal, which means any screening becomes accessible: opening weekend, evening showings, a birthday outing with hearing friends. That converts subtitling from a scheduled concession into a property of every screening, and it is the choice of when to attend, rather than the captions themselves, that the current arrangement denies.
Against that, the solution repairs the exclusion while preserving its shape. The deaf viewer alone has to collect equipment from a desk, wear something visible, and depend on it having been charged, none of which a hearing viewer does, so the burden stays with the person who was already excluded. Kit-based access also fails in ways scheduled access does not: an uncharged or unavailable pair means no film at all that evening, whereas a fixed weekly screening at least happens.
The cost is significant. At €900 a pair a cinema will hold few, so a group of deaf friends may not all be served at one screening, and the eye strain some users report means the device does not suit everyone in the group it targets.
On balance the glasses are worth adopting but not as the whole answer. They deliver the freedom of choice that matters most and should be introduced, while the weekly burned-in screening is retained for viewers the glasses do not suit and for those who prefer not to wear a device. The strongest inclusive solution would be to increase burned-in subtitled screenings as well, since that is the only version where nobody has to identify themselves or carry anything.
Markscheme
(a) Inclusive design focuses on designing universally acceptable products for all users.
• No choice of viewing position; the seat is fixed at the back ✓
• Cannot sit among a group of friends or family ✓
• Viewing angle and distance are the same regardless of preference ✓
• Provision depends on two seats being removed, so it is conditional ✓
• Being placed at the end of a row marks the user out ✓
• Cannot book the seats other viewers regard as the best ✓
Award [1] for each relevant limitation identified up to [2 max].
(b) Inclusive design ensures products address the needs of the widest possible audience regardless of age or ability.
• One screening a week, usually on a weekday afternoon ✓
• Most potential viewers are at work or school at that time ✓
• Access is granted in principle and withdrawn in practice ✓
• The viewer cannot attend with hearing friends at a time that suits them ✓
• The film cannot be seen on its opening weekend ✓
• The choice of when to attend is removed, which other viewers keep ✓
• A single screening cannot absorb demand from the whole deaf audience ✓
Award [1] for each relevant brief point on why the availability limits usefulness up to [2 max].
(c) • Audio description reaches one person through a headset ✓
• It changes nothing for other viewers, so it costs them nothing ✓
• It can therefore run at every screening without scheduling ✓
• Subtitles are burned into the shared picture ✓
• Switching them on changes the film for all 240 viewers ✓
• Some viewers object, so the cinema treats it as a separate event ✓
• The difference is whether the accommodation is personal or shared ✓
Award [1] for each detail, leading to an account of why the two features differ in availability, up to [2 max]. The response must identify the personal against shared distinction for full marks.
(d) Inclusive design is not always possible; solutions must be appraised against the needs of the whole user population.
Strengths:
• Makes subtitles personal, which removes the reason they are rationed ✓
• Any screening becomes accessible, including evenings and opening weekend ✓
• Restores the choice of when to attend, which is what the current arrangement denies ✓
• Allows a deaf viewer to attend with hearing friends at a time that suits everyone ✓
• Converts subtitling from a scheduled concession into a property of every screening ✓
• No effect on other viewers, so no objection to manage ✓
Limitations:
• The deaf viewer alone must collect, wear and rely on equipment ✓
• The burden stays with the person already excluded ✓
• Wearing a visible device identifies the user as needing an adjustment ✓
• An uncharged or unavailable pair means no film at all that evening ✓
• At €900 a pair a cinema will hold few, so a group may not all be served ✓
• Reported eye strain means the device does not suit everyone in the target group ✓
• Requires charging and cleaning between uses, adding an operational failure point ✓
Judgment:
• Worth adopting, but not as the whole answer ✓
• The weekly burned-in screening should be retained for those the glasses do not suit ✓
• Increasing burned-in screenings is the only version where nobody must identify themselves or carry anything ✓
Award [1] for each distinct strength / limitation, leading to an appraisal of the subtitle glasses, up to [4 max]. Award a maximum of [3] where only strengths or only limitations are given. Credit responses that distinguish personal from universal solutions.
The 7 principles of universal design
universaldesign.ie/about-universal-design/the-7-pri…
Each principle with its guidelines and examples. This is the framework 1.2.1 is built on, so read the guidelines under each principle rather than the headline alone.
Good Grips Peeler, Smart Design, MoMA collection
moma.org/collection/works/3758
The museum record for the peeler, including how Sam Farber came to commission it after watching his wife struggle with arthritis. A design for one group of users that turned out to be better for everyone.
The curb-cut effect, Stanford Social Innovation Review
ssir.org/articles/entry/the_curb_cut_effect
The full argument for why designing for people with disabilities produces benefits far beyond them, with the history of how curb cuts were won. The strongest single source for 1.2.1.
Americans with Disabilities Act
ada.gov
The 1990 legislation and its accessibility design standards. Useful for seeing accessibility written as measurable requirements rather than intentions.
Inclusive design, Nielsen Norman Group
nngroup.com/articles/inclusive-design
Sorts out inclusive design, universal design and accessibility, which are used loosely and mean different things. Read it before you use the terms in an exam answer.
Disability, World Health Organization
who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and…
Global prevalence figures for disability. The numbers are the argument that inclusive design is a mainstream requirement, not a niche one.
Tactile feature on Australian banknotes, Reserve Bank of Australia
banknotes.rba.gov.au/australias-banknotes/next-gene…
Why the raised bumps exist, how the vision impaired community shaped them, and why the number of bumps changes with denomination. Note that it is deliberately not Braille.
Linking Questions
- To what extent is a deep understanding of ergonomics important when engaging with inclusive design? (A1.1)
- To what extent can designers remove personal bias when using user-centred research methods? (A2.1)
- How can products integrate mechanical systems to improve accessibility and usability in an inclusive design approach? (A3.3) (B3.3)
- To what extent can the inclusion of electronic systems in products enhance accessibility and usability for all end-users? (A3.4) (B3.4)
- Which aspects of inclusive design benefit from the designer going beyond usability when designing products? (C1.3)
- How important is accessibility and usability when conducting product analysis and evaluation? (C3.1)
Case Study: The Typewriter
Around 1808, an Italian inventor named Pellegrino Turri built a writing machine for a close friend, Countess Carolina Fantoni da Fivizzano. She had lost her sight and could no longer write a letter anyone else could read. There was no real market for it, just a goal to help someone who couldn't see write letters without help. Several of the Countess's letters, typed on Turri's machine, survive today. Unfortunately the machine itself has been lost to history.
Turri's solution needed a way to check that the ink had actually transferred to the page, so he is also credited with inventing carbon paper specifically to make his machine work. Six decades later, a commercially successful version by Christopher Sholes introduced the QWERTY key layout, and the typewriter went on to dominate offices worldwide for over a century. Every keyboard in front of a sighted, able-bodied typist today, including the one this text was written on, descends from a machine built to solve one blind woman's very particular problem.
Learn more about the history of the keyboard: History-Computer.com