Front matter

"Universal design provides a blueprint for maximum inclusion of all people" [7]. This statement is now nearly 20 years old. The present collection of papers from the 3rd International Conference on Universal Design (UD 2016) is testament to the fact that Universal Design is now benefitting from a climate that is more knowledgeable about, and possibly more accommodating of, individual differences between people. However, there are still many open issues, and much to be learnt from exchanging experiences between all stakeholders interested in Universal Design, be they policy makers, practitioners or researchers. This is due to the many changes in society, the environment and technology that have occurred in the last two decades. In this collection of papers from the conference, we cover many areas of theory and practice of Universal Design, with applications from the built environment and tangible products, to communication, services, and system design issues. There are also papers about advocating and teaching Universal Design, debates about policy, and about codes, regulations and standards. We hope the collection is a useful way for policy makers, practitioners and researchers interested in these different strands of work to learn and exchange ideas and best practices, and to break down the "silos" that inevitably emerge in any group attempting to address a topic of mutual interest from many perspectives. In gathering together these different strands, we also need to reflect on the current manifestations of Universal Design, and what implications there are for the years to come. We need to look back to where we came from, and to look forward to the future shaping of Universal Design. With the benefit of nearly 20 years since the publication of the Principles of Universal Design Principles of Universal Design Version 2.0 4/1/97. © Copyright 1997 NC State University, The Center for Universal Design, an initiative of the College of Design. Compiled by advocates of universal design, listed in alphabetical order: Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir Mullick, Elaine Ostroff, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly Story, & Gregg Vanderheiden https://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/sites/cud/content/principles/principles.html. , we can review some of the terminology and its development around the concept of Universal Design. From the outset, the term referred to a broad spectrum of applications. It covered the design of buildings, products and environments, and the need for these to be inherently accessible to older people, people without disabilities, and people with disabilities. More specifically, the term Universal Design was defined in 1997 as "the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design" https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm. . As with all concise definitions, it has been necessary to emphasise and add to this statement, for instance: • Universal Design is really about including all people and not a euphemism for "design for those with a disability". It is about products, services, and environments being usable, to the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, cultural background or status in life [1]. • The phrase "to the greatest extent possible" was added to counter criticism that Universal Design was a utopian ideal, and to underscore that Universal Design is a practical as well as conceptual approach. • The focus of Universal Design is on mainstream products, services, and environments and not on adaptations or specialist products, services, and environments. • Universal Design emphasises the need to design from the outset for the widest possible range of users, rather than try to make modifications later on, whether during the design process or after release. • Products, services, and environments should also be aesthetically pleasing as well as non-discriminatory and non-stigmatising. Most of these elaborations are enshrined in the Principles of Universal Design. This is a set of seven principles that were developed to lay out guidance for the design of environments, products and communications, to evaluate existing designs, and to educate both designers and consumers about the characteristics of more usable products and environments. In addition, other terms have come into being, responding to the need to explain different aspects of the Universal Design spectrum. In 1998, at the "Designing for the 21st Century Conference" Ron Mace's presentation differentiated between the meanings and practices associated with the terms "Barrier-Free Design", "Assistive Technology" and "Universal Design" [2]. At the turn of the millennium, "Design for All" was the term adopted by the European Commission which focused on ensuring that environments, products, services and interfaces of the Information Society Technologies (ISTs) work for people of all ages and abilities in different situations and under various circumstances [6, 8]. It spelt out the "adaptation or specialized design" with a three-part strategy: • Design of IST products, services and applications which are demonstrably suitable for most of the potential users without any modifications. • Design of products which are easily adaptable to different users (e.g. by incorporating adaptable or customisable user interfaces). • Design of products which have standardised interfaces, capable of being accessed by specialised user interaction devices [6]. Alongside setting out this strategy, the definition of Design for All made a conscious effort to make the concept more widely acceptable by explaining how Design for All could benefit not just consumers of ISTs, but also producers, and give wider social and economic benefit. Amongst other things, adopting a Design for All approach would help deal proactively with the demographic trend of the aging population, and benefit businesses with increased sales of innovatively designed products that everyone could use. In short, Design for All advocated a policy of mutual benefit, where the "for all" descriptor included more than the user population. However, as with the term Universal Design, Design for All was misinterpreted, and accused firstly of the impractical aim of trying to accommodate everyone without exception. Secondly, there was a confusion that Design for All in its insistence on minimizing adaptation, was advocating a "one design fits all" stance, evidenced by the question posed at the time "Could you imagine a pair of shoes being designed in such way that everybody would want to wear them?" A preferred term to Design for All in the English-speaking European literature is "Inclusive Design". Coined by Roger Coleman in 1994 RICA (Research Institute for Consumer Affairs) (2016) Inclusive Design: manufacturing, design, and retail expert views available from rica.org.uk. , this was an elegant apposition to the marketing term "exclusive design" as well as being a way of bringing in the notion of social equity that is part of the ethos of Universal Design and enshrined in the first of the seven Principles of Universal Design. Interestingly, in 2005, the British Standards Institute described Inclusive Design in its "Guide to Managing Inclusive Design" as "comprehensive, integrated design which encompasses all aspects of a product used by consumers of diverse age and capability in a wide range of contexts" BS 7000-6:2005, Design management systems. Managing inclusive design. Guide. . The emphasis is firmly on products, as noted by the compilers of the Inclusive Design Toolkit Inclusive Design Toolkit, What is Inclusive Design, Section: Comparison with Universal Design, http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign2/whatis/whatis.html#p3b. . However in the guide itself, the definition is widened to include services: "the design of mainstream products and/or services that are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible without the need for special adaptation or specialised design" BS 7000-6, 2005. Design Management Systems: Managing Inclusive Design, BSi, London, UK. http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030142267. . With the term Inclusive Design, the notion that the design is of mutual benefit to all stakeholders, as in Design for All, was lost. It is perhaps telling that the Scandinavian countries with their tradition of collaborative and participatory design are the main supporters of the term Design for All as the most appropriate one to use [6]. It is a term no longer in such evident use by the European Commission. However, it is notable that in the proposal for what is being more commonly referred to as the European Accessibility Act, there is a somewhat awkward paraphrase "Accessibility following a 'design for all' approach" Section 1.2, European Commission (2015) COM(2015) 615 final2015/0278 (COD) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services. which could be understood as an attempt to keep the "mutual benefit" notion, since the Directive is not calling for human rights non-discriminatory legislation directly, but for support of the Single Market. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)