[community] Differentiating Accessibility, Universal Design and Inclusive Design

Monique Desnoyers 2551109 at student.ocadu.ca
Wed Oct 26 00:31:35 UTC 2016


I agree that systematic captures it the full meaning.

I noticed your use of human diversity and understood it to include social/cultural - just am hoping that is how it will be read in a wider context. 

Monique

-----Original Message-----
From: Treviranus, Jutta [mailto:jtreviranus at ocadu.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 8:15 PM
To: Desnoyers, Monique
Cc: Treviranus, Jutta; Treviranus, Jutta; Inclusive Design Community
Subject: Re: [community] Differentiating Accessibility, Universal Design and Inclusive Design

Thanks Monique,
Systemic is being used in the sense that the inclusive approach permeates the entire system: the tools used, who participates, the method of communication, the evaluation and feedback loops, the transparency of the decisions made, and not just the outcome. “Informed" wouldn’t fully capture it. Would "systems approach" be better?

I agree about reflecting the social/cultural dimension. Should this be highlighted as a difference? I’ve alluded to it by mentioning disability in the accessibility statement and referring to human diversity when discussing inclusive design. While Universal Design is usually associated with disability, it is not a constraint of the definition of Universal Design. 

Jutta



> On Oct 25, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Monique Desnoyers <2551109 at student.ocadu.ca> wrote:
> 
> Think it's critical that inclusive design reflects the social/cultural dimension as it often seems like the discussion is primarily framed by disabilities. 
> 
> What about "informed" instead of "systematic" approach - systematic seems rigid and possibly authoritarian whereas informed suggests an outward inclusive approach.
> 
> Monique Desnoyers
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: community [mailto:community-bounces at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca] On Behalf Of Treviranus, Jutta
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 4:11 PM
> To: Inclusive Design Community
> Subject: [community] Differentiating Accessibility, Universal Design and Inclusive Design
> 
> I’m part of a number of UN Committees and was requested to both define inclusive design and differentiate inclusive design from accessibility and Universal Design.
> 
> I would love to get your thoughts and suggestions as this will go into some fairly far-reaching documents.
> 
> Here is my proposed wording for the differentiation (not the definition):
> 
> Accessibility is an intended outcome for persons that experience disabilities.
> 
> Universal design, as it is currently articulated, is a set of universal quality criteria for a design.
> 
> Inclusive design focuses on a) achieving an integrated personal fit for the full range of human diversity, b) the process of design and who participates in the design decisions, and c) the indirect impact of the design or the design in its larger context.
> 
> Inclusive design is more than an outcome or a set of design criteria. It is a systemic approach that guards against the risk that persons will be excluded by the outcome, the set of criteria, the design process, or the indirect impact of a design. As such Inclusive Design encompasses both accessibility and Universal Design.
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Jutta
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca) To manage your subscription, please visit: http://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
> 





More information about the community mailing list