“INCLUSIVE DESIGN: A NEW APPROACH TO
DESIGN PROJECT”
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
1
Professor at Faculdade de Arquitectura,Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, postal address:
Rua Sá Nogueira / Alto da Ajuda / 1349-955 Lisboa / Portugal, phone: +351 213615085, fax:
+351 213625138, email: dasilva@fa.utl.pt
2
Assistant at Faculdade de Arquitectura,Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, postal address:
Rua Sá Nogueira / Alto da Ajuda / 1349-955 Lisboa / Portugal, phone: +351 213615085, fax:
+351 213625138, email: almendra@fa.utl.pt
Abstract:
All human beings are entitled to human dignity on equal terms. This principle must
dominate the development of a society open to everyone, which leads to Inclusive Design
concept.
Inclusive design is not an obstacle, it’s a challenge; it’s a philosophy based on individual
differences. The concept implies the creation of environments, products and services available
and usable by the largest possible number of people, of all ages, sizes and with different
abilities, given them equal opportunity to participate in society, thus the physical environment
can directly prevent people from participating in desired activities on equal terms with the
majority. In Europe almost 25 % of the population suffer from some form of functional
limitation. In Portugal, more than 1 million of persons have some type of inability.
The design project, as central subject in the designer’s formation, should be developed
having in mind the Inclusive Design principles, in a sustainable perspective, behind the
concept dissemination. The idea is to demonstrate how the design practices can adopt a
routine inclusive approach, if those principles should be considered right from the very
beginning. Behind the inclusive design contents and practices associated to the design project,
in the designers’ graduate formation, the integrated research projects and the post-graduate
formation are also mainstream forms of the approach to the theme in the Lisbon Faculty of
Architecture (FA).
Several research projects in inclusive design are in development at FA, integrated in LID –
Design Innovation Laboratory, among which: “The Observatory in Inclusive Design”;
“Evaluation of the Accessibility and Usability Conditions of ATM Machines”; “Design
Ergonomic Project”; “Accessibility and Inclusion in Graduation Teaching”.
Everyone involved in the current process at FA hope that this postural changing may
contribute for a better knowledge and application of the rule and standards in what concerns
accessibilities and Inclusive Design, when developing a Design Project, in a way to integrate
a greater number of persons.
2
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
We should be able to make our choices about spaces, environment, objects and
information design, and also its politics, not only to reduce the barriers, but also to incorporate
all in a sustainable approach, with social responsibility and respect for the human rights.
Key words: Inclusive design, Universal Design, Design For All, Product design, Identity,
Stigmatization, Satisfactory products, Denotation, Connotation.
1.
WHAT IS INCLUSIVE DESIGN, UNIVERSAL
DESIGN AND DESIGN FOR ALL
Inclusive Design shares a similar origin as well as identical objectives of
other design approaches or denominations, such as: “universal design”,
“design for all”, “lifespan design” and “design for the diversity”.
The origin of the term is North American and begin to be developed
after the worries with the disabilities, having assumed later on amore overall
position and meaning, assuming nowadays the definition of projecting for
all.
Formally the concept supports itself in the “Seven Principles of
Universal Design” [1], developed by a group of researchers formed by
architects, product designers, engineers, and environment designers.
Inclusive Design is not an obstacle, it’s a challenge! It’s a philosophy based
on individual differences.
Inclusive Design is a philosophy which is materialized in design project
processes whose result is the creation of products, services and/or
environments available and usable by the largest possible number of people,
regardless of age, gender or abilities. The aim of the concept is to make life
easier for everyone by making products, means of communication, buildings
and urban environments, which are more useable for more people at little or
no extra cost (adapted from Shipley 2002) [2].
It is a complex and evolutive concept which tries to answer not only the
above questions as well as the ethnic questions, economic resources,
education, culture, etc.
Inclusive Design, or Universal Design, or Design For All, is an overall
strategy and philosophy which is based on giving all people equal
opportunities to participate in modern society. This means that our physical
surroundings, products and services are planned and designed so that
everyone can participate regardless of age or physical ability.
All human beings are entitled to human dignity on equal terms. This
principle must dominate the development of a society open to everyone,
which leads to Inclusive Design concept.
However, the physical surroundings also contribute to the creation of
physical barriers – e.g. when wheel-chair users, persons with walking
Inclusive Design: a new approach to Design Project
3
difficulties, people pushing prams or senior citizens cannot climb the steps to
a shop or an office or a mean of transportation and where there is no elevator
or any other alternative. We must not forget that these people are active
agents of their own will.
The physical environment can directly prevent people from participating
in desired activities on equal terms with the majority. The physical
environment covers many things: In addition to buildings and product
design, sign-posting, colour selection, transport and IT are also areas where
Inclusive Design is of the utmost importance. An environment filled with
obstacles or lacking of facilitators will reduce performance, while other
environments, fitted with facilitators, will allow improving performance.
Inclusive Design doesn’t start only with the aspiration of designing for
all, but especially with a critic look over the world in which we live in. It’s
based in a holistic and sustainable understanding of the responsibilities of
those who act in the built environment.
Inclusive Design is framed by the two central concerns of the XXI
century Design:

Demographic Changes – aging of the population, longer life of the
elderly and a reduced birth rate, especially the occidental population
(even if Japan is the worst case in statistic terms).

Sustainability in global terms – understood not only under the point
of view of the degradation of the natural resources, trying to find a
better management of these, time consistent, creative and without
lost of human life quality, but, and above all, a social, cultural and
relational sustainability, stimulated by a material culture which,
besides the ecological considerations, benefits the relationships,
promotes the interaction and the communication and has the objects
as multifaceted perceptional tools.
Inclusive design is frequently associated with usability and utility. As a
result, inclusively designed products are often looked at as tools with which
users achieve tasks. However, this approach to inclusive design might be
risky. It ignores issues such as people’s emotions, values, hopes and fears.
Thus it ignores the very essence of what makes us human and might be
interpret as stigmatizing. When designing inclusively, designers need to look
beyond usability at other factors that can affect the relationship between
person and product. This one can obtain by designing satisfactory products,
which are socially accepted products and pleasurable products.
Satisfactory products call for an understanding of the users and their
requirements and it links product properties to emotional responses. The
necessary knowledge on how to design satisfactory products we get from the
field of product semiotics. Products that are designed this way will be highly
usable and communicate the desired identity of the users. By designing
4
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
inclusive this way, we design inclusive, mainstream products. Thus we avoid
producing stigmatizing products because mainstream products cannot be
stigmatizing by definition.
The challenge for inclusive design is to move from looking merely at
users, products and tasks, to take a more holistic view at people, products
and their relationships.
2.
THE DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUE
2.1
The Aging of the Population
According to Coleman (1999) [3], demographic data point out to a
drastic world change in what concerns the age structure: in a few years there
will be a considerable grown of the elderly population. This population
(which is nowadays between 50 and 60 years old) according to Coleman it
will probably be more clarified and exigent than the former “retired”
generations. They will be more experienced consumers, with high
perspectives in what concerns products and services. Demographic studies
estimate that, over the next 50 years, in the OCDE countries, the percentage
of elderly people, which is currently about 15%, will reach 20-30%, the
number of elderly people over 80 will triple and the number of elderly
people over 65 will double.
In Europe almost 25 per cent of the population suffer from some form of
functional limitation. In Portugal, over 1 million of persons have some form
of disability.
Moreover, the increasing age of the population both inside and outside
Europe has made accessibility and user-friendly design a universal demand.
This need that one feels to adjective this inclusion worry, which is
Inclusive Design, gives us the real dimension of the generalized indifference
to this type of questions.
This uninterested almost endemic takes root in different factors, such as:

Commercial and marketing issues, related to consume culture;
differentiation mechanisms; styling and the use of design as an
epidemic form, in makeup operations, inducing the idea of an
“innovation” and/or personalization which doesn’t exist but is
communicated.

Social/Cultural issues which pass through a valorization, by
occidental societies, youth, individualism, autonomy, undertaking,
competitivety, in opposition to elderly experience and knowledge
which are devaluated, ostracized and forgotten.
Inclusive Design: a new approach to Design Project
3.
5
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVED
POPULATION AND INCLUSIVE DESIGN
SUCCESS
The inexistence of a philosophy of inclusiveness serving the human
diversity is early enounced, just when the target of the populations that will
be served by products, spaces and services are defined.
It is unrealistic and simplistic to think that the target-population for each
product and space is ”all the people”. It is known that there are limits to the
number of persons who wish to use a certain product. Therefore, and
according to Keates e Clarkson (2003) [4], we can consider the existence of
different potential users when we project a certain product or space: whole
population – which is not more than the solution for an utopic issue -, ideal
population – which represents the maximum of population which can be
covered by the product -, the negotiable maximum population – which is the
one who is reachable by the product – and, the included population – which
represents the one who is effectively served by that product.
But this classification known by WINI (Whole-Ideal-NegotiableIncluded) doesn’t translate necessarily the way the wanted target population
definition is made, which strongly depends on the choices of the different
enterprises based in segmentations oriented by marketing logics. So, it is
probable that the wanted target population is defined by the enterprise based
in the whole population or in the ideal population, being that its own size
and composition, independent of the negotiable maximum population and
the included population.
WINIT
In the scheme proposed by Keates
& Clarkson (2003) it’s possible to
observe that the population decreases
in dimension from the whole
population
for
the
included
population, being the wanted target
population
established
by
the
enterprise. These five possible
classifications of population are
nominated by the authors as WINIT
(WINI+ Target) and they are used by
them as success measure base in terms
of Inclusive Design.
Figure 1. Scheme proposed by Keates & Clarkson (2003).
6
4.
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
DESIGN PROJECT
When an inclusive project is developed it is essential to redefine who the
user is, eliminating the expression “them” or “us” (Steinfeld & Tauke, 2002 [5]
4.1
Project strategies – process and methodologies
definition
There are some models which formalize different approaches to the
inclusive project processes. Among these: 4.1.1) Top-Dowvs Bottom-Up
approach; 4.1.2) the inclusive design cube and 4.1.3) the deign approach in
Seven Levels.
4.1.1
Top-Down/Bottom-Up
In terms of inclusive project strategies, there are two types of approaches
according to Clarkson e Keates (2003) and defined by them as: the “topdown” and the “bottom-up”. These two approaches come out of the analyses
of the capability pyramid by Benktzon (1993) [6], presented down and
which tries to translate graphically the different capabilities of the
population.
Having this model present, a
designer who wishes his product to
be the more inclusive as possible,
faces two possibilities of project
approach: or makes de option of a
“top-down” approach or a “bottomup”. The question he has to deal
with is whether to make an assistive
product more mainstream friendly
or make a “normal” product more
inclusive.
Figure 2 Capability pyramid by Benktzon (1993).
In the first case we are behind a project attitude in which the users target
is the least functionally capable users. This circumstance ads the fact of
generically and till now, the majority of the products developed according to
this approach have limited success, because they are viewed as technical
aids.
Inclusive Design: a new approach to Design Project
7
In truth, a great number of these objects serve “medical” needs and are
often acquired by health organisms for which the esthetical value is not very
important in comparison with the functional value, the longevity of the
object or the spatial solution.
In the case of the product developed according to a Top-Down strategy, if
we are interested in its dissemination or its commercial success, it is
essential that it may be attractive for the maximum number of user.
Producer and consumer benefit of the enlargement of the mainstream
market. The products accepted by the ma market, by definition, they are not
stigmatizing. There is also another advantage when producing for such a
large market, which is of obtaining scale economies, turning possible a
product less expensive and larger profits.
In what concerns the Bottom-up strategy, the designer projects for the
majority and tries to develop his projects in a way to include markets of
especial needs. This approach is of great potential for commercially
profitable products.
The greater difficulty presented by this approach is that the way we
approach the top of the pyramid, greater inabilities are taken in account and
more marginal is the return in financial terms. This fact may demote the
companies of investing in this type of strategies, especially if the involved
financial effort is significant when enlarging till the less ability sphere. On
the other hand, it’s very limited the possibility of progression till the top of
the pyramid, because there are situations of great inability which demand the
design of a special product.
This shows that, probably, it is more sensate to complement the bottomup strategies with top-down strategies in a way to cover the global
population needs.
4.1.2
The Inclusive Design Cube
If we look at Benktzon pyramid we are able to see that different project
for all approaches are in three main categories:

Design concerned with the user: which tries to extend the boundaries
of the mass products in a way to include the possible greater
number of persons;

Design customizable or modular: design which tries to minimize the
difficulties of adaptation to particular users;

Design for special uses: design for specific users with very particular
needs.
8
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
The principle in the origin of the Inclusive
Design Cube is that these same design
approaches can became more visible if
formalised in a model with a cube shape in
which the part of the population functionally
more able are in the interior of the cube and
the ones with less abilities are in the exterior.
Figure 3 “The Inclusive Design Cube (IDC)”,
Keates e Clarkson (2003)
This model explicit more clearly who is included and therefore who is
excluded in each design approach.
4.1.3
The Approach in Seven Levels
In a simple approach to the design project process, there are three main
steps:
But, if we wish to include in the design project process social and
practical considerations, we have to promote its extensions, as it happens in
the approach to design in seven levels, shown on the right hand side.
Although this approach is presented in a sequential way, each one of the
steps can be thought as a support of interactions.
In fact, many times it’s really essential the existence of interactions
inside and between the different levels.
Keates e Clarkson (2003) tried to introduce in the model of the inclusive
design cube the concerns present in the design approach in 7 levels.
Inclusive Design: a new approach to Design Project
9
If the design approach in 7
levels was adopted to frame the
design process development,
this can be completed with the
inclusive design cube, in a way
that with this one we are able
to monitorize the populational
coverage aimed by the
different project choices.
In fact, the design approach
in 7 levels can be seen as the
projector considering the three
axes of the inclusive design
cube. The necessary change to
use it, or for the system
definition, is the rename of the
axes, in a way that these be
able to reflect the levels 3 and
5 of the design approach in 7
levels (see figure 4).
Figure 4 “The design approach in 7 levels”, Keates e Clarkson (2003)
4.2
How to translate the information from the user of
inclusive products and services
One of the critical problems in the inclusive project of objects, spaces
and services is not only the quality data collection near the users, but above
all it translation in material terms. Clarkson e Keates (2003) propose the use
of the known “knowledge loop” down presented which is not more than a
representation of the necessary information flux and of the activities evolved
in the production of projects genuinely validated a inclusive. This model has
also the virtue of presenting the large spectre of agents evolved in the
inclusive design which go further than the stereotype of the final user, as
being “old and unable” and of the designers as passive information users.
10
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
Being such a rich model, it may be used in different forms. It can be read
after any point but, in the present case, it’s important to see it in terms of
information users and of final users.
In the perspective of
successful
inclusive
product production we
have to consider that the
designer, the user of
information of the model
(point 5) wants to
produce an inclusive
product.
The first step it will
be to collect the
necessary information
about the final user and
the available inclusive
design methods (point 6
of the
model).
Figure 5 “The knowledge loop”, Keates e Clarkson (2003)
Next step is the application of the methods and of the data, and the
generation of the product concept (point 7). Then, the concept needs to be
verified and compared with the specifications (point 8) in a way to assure
that the product corresponds to the prevue functional requests. However, to
validate the product it is necessary to test it with the final users (point 1).
The data information during the tests with the final users needs to be
collected (point 2) and generated from them, summary representations (point
3). Only after these representations being available the product is finally
validated (point 4). If the product isn’t validated, the designer should make a
revue of the initial concept and restart the process which should be repeated
as many times as necessary till an acceptable product being generated, under
the inclusive point of view.
Under the perspective of the data collection about the final users (point
1), this first step evolves the identification of potential data collection
techniques (point 2) and the application of these techniques in a way to
generate the adequate representations of the data (point 3). The generated
information can be verified in a way to assure that it has coherence and
internal correction (point 4) before being passed to the information user
(point 5). To validate the generated information it is necessary to assure that
Inclusive Design: a new approach to Design Project
11
it is usable by the information users, so, these should apply this information
in a way to test it (point 6). Only developing a product or a service (pointo7)
adequate to the users’ wishes and needs originally observed, the data
collection methods can be really validated (point 8). In what concerns the
use of the “Knowledge loop” to develop an acceptable inclusive product, the
data collection process should be repeated till the data validation being
obtained.
As final note, having present the interdependence between the 8 points
which constitute the “Knowledge Loop”, it is necessary that each of them be
solved efficiently in a way that the resulting products and services being also
them successful objects.
5.
THE INCLUSIVE DESIGN TEACHING
5.1
The need to teach Inclusive Design
During the last years, the inclusive design issue has acquired a
significant importance at European level. One of the most relevant points
concerns the need of including or not this subject in the curricula of the
courses directly related with the construction of our material reality.
Among the reasons which fundament this option of including this
subject at university level, and according to a reflection handled by the
“Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design for Centre for Education in the
Built Environment” coordinated by Ruth Morrow from the School of
Architecture, University of Sheffield [7], there are five reasons as the more
determinants: the moral argument, the sustainability argument, the legal
argument, the professional argument and the economical argument.
5.1.1
The Moral Argument
Inclusive design is essentially a value based process, which takes as its
premise the fact that everyone has a right to participate in community life.
Consequently, a powerful argument to support the importance of teaching
inclusive design is the need to assist students in the development of their
own set of values to underpin their future practice as built environment
professionals. Inclusive design can fulfill this important function. It is clear
that teaching students to administer technical codes or interpret legislation
for equal rights is an important part of the preparation of a student for
12
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
professional practice, but more clear is the fact this type of approach will not
have practical reflection without a philosophical underpinning. (Lifchez,
1986) [8].
Over the last few decades academic and professional discourses have
provided substantial weight to the argument that society has created a
disabling environment for many people (Oliver, 1990) [9]. This, in turn, has
lead to the wide spread realization that society has a responsibility to remove
obstacles to promote equal participation for all people and avoid the creation
of new disabling environments (Davis, 1993) [10]. However, within the
context of built environment and product design education, the strongest and
clearest moral argument to teaching inclusive design is that an inclusive
environment is a fundamental human right.
5.1.2
The Sustainability Argument
A sustainable environment is one that supports a sustainable society or
community. Built environments which are inaccessible or exclude people
lead to isolated and poorly interconnected communities. Such communities
have been shown to require more external support and resources.
Community sustainability is best achieved through the creation of inclusive
environments, product and services which combine flexible, usable and
formal adaptability with long term affordability and access to services and
material and functional characteristics.
Such environments encourage neighborhoods to evolve and flourish, by
supporting and facilitating change, growth and responsiveness to changing
needs of built environment, products and services users.
Flexible, “organic” environments, which grow with their communities,
are less likely to become redundant or abandoned. These sustainable
environments will enable and encourage interaction and socialization with
others in the surrounding community as well as with other communities
elsewhere.
Inclusive environments allow people to exercise their right of choice,
integration and participation, regardless of their age, ability, gender, culture,
etc. The inclusive communities find it easier to develop both formal and
informal networks at different levels which define them as sustainable
communities for being balanced, healthy and less resource-hungry.
Inclusive Design: a new approach to Design Project
5.1.3
13
The Legal Argument
Laws that embrace and safeguard health and equality have increased in
number over the last 30 years. The built environment, which provides the
context for our lives, is framed as much by its hard physical edges and the
aims of individuals as it is by legislation.
The basic aim of the legislation is to end any form of discrimination
against disabled people, and this includes discriminatory practice in the
design and management of built environments.
Nature needs of what is “reasonable”, in terms of inclusiveness at legal
level, and is in permanent evolution. As a consequence of this, the role of the
designers, architects and all agents evolved in the built environment, will be
not only to keep abreast of changing views of what is regarded as reasonable
in terms of inclusiveness to be able to produce solutions, but also to act as a
leader of changing public opinion about what is possible in terms of
improving levels of inclusiveness.
5.1.4
The Professional Argument
"How ethical is it to practice architecture - to be professional licensed to
design buildings and places of assembly - without having first developed an
intellectual and emotional understanding of people?" (Lifchez, 1986)
The substance of the moral argument has been embedded in the codes of
conduct of many built environment professional institutions. It is important
that this argument doesn’t restrict itself to paper and that a pro-active
conscience of this inclusive philosophy, because a professional is as well as
defined and shaped by his knowledge and skills as by his integrated ethical
approach to the profession.
5.1.5
The Economic Argument
Put simply, one can say that if an environment is inclusive, it allows
more people to access it, work there, pay taxes and buy consumables and
services. Built artificial environment professionals have a duty to show their
private and public sector clients that inclusive design offers benefits that
directly affect long-term profitability, consumer relations and corporate
reputation.
14
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
In this approach to inclusive design, students can be encouraged to
demonstrate that designing inclusively can be seen not as a burden for the
clients, but as an opportunity to expand markets and increase business
profitability. However, it is evident that many people still associate inclusive
design with extra costs. There is some evidence that it may have an implied
cost, but equally there are case studies, where inclusive design has cost more
in the short term but cost less in the long term by increasing profitability
through decreasing life time management costs of the products,
environments and services.
It is worth being aware that there are other financial incentives to
designing inclusively. Many funding bodies such as Design Council,
EQUAL, CABE, etc, have begun to embed the concept of inclusion into
their aims and funding criteria. There seems to be a general trend toward the
situation, where any project that attracts central government funding will
only be successful, if the project demonstrates exemplary practice in relation
to inclusive design.
Furthermore, there are many disadvantages associated with failing to
design inclusively, such as the possibility to include the cost of bad publicity
associated with poor design solutions, the creation of hard to let buildings
and poor economic viability, the costs associated with the need to undertake
remedial works and even the costs of litigation. In addition, there are costs
associated with providing care or support to people who are unable to/ can
no longer use these environments and products independently or safely.
5.2
Teaching Inclusive Design at Lisbon Faculty of
Architecture (FA)
The concept of inclusive design is not yet equally disseminated in the six
graduation courses existent at FA.
The Design graduation course has been ahead of the process, mainly
because of the position and involvement of its teachers and professors about
the inclusivity them.
As we have already seen, Inclusive Design has as it main objective to
evolve a large number of necessities and wishes of the users, well defined in
the development of any type of project.
The needs of the users, which may concern people with or without
limited use of their capacities, have to be known by project makers in
general (architects, designers, engineers, landscape architects, etc.).
A design process (understood a project) must have in consideration these
needs, which must be based in a detailed knowledge of the actual situation of
the users and the possible options.
Inclusive Design: a new approach to Design Project
15
In a great number of cases it is necessary to work with the users or with
people from different organizations of disabilities, during all project process.
Project makers acquire competence based upon knowledge of people
with different characteristics, needs and/or wishes.
At Lisbon Faculty of Architecture, one of the first concerns in the
construction of the contents for the subjects which are related with inclusive
design is to give a special emphasis to contents considered relevant, such as:
equal opportunities for all; inability and legislation (national and European);
international recommendations; the nature of the inability (physics or motor
mobility;
sensorial
and
cognitive
difficulties,
aging;
urban
environment/transport: comfort, health and safety; professional
responsibility.
The design project is the central subject in the designer’s formation. It’s
important to have in mind Inclusive Design Principles, in a sustainable
perspective, not forgetting the concept dissemination and to adopt always an
inclusive approach, having in consideration the inclusive principles since the
initial phase of the design process.
In the Design course curriculum, besides the subjects of the Design
Project, inclusive design principles and practices are approached in other
subjects: Ergonomics, Design of Communication; Theory of Design and
Object Critics. Ergonomics is also taught in Interior Architecture and
Fashion Design courses. So, Architecture, Urban and Territorial Planning
and Urban Management courses don’t have subjects in their curricula in
which the inclusive design problematic is approached. However, some
teachers with knowledge in the area include it in the contents of their
subjects.
There is also another subject, optional and transversal to all courses:
Inclusive Deign and Sustainability. In its contents there is a reinforcement of
competences specifically oriented to the promotion and management of
programs fomenting inclusivity and sustainability in equipments, built
spaces and exterior spaces.
The integrated research projects and the post-graduate formation are also
important ways to the theme approach at FA. LID – Design Innovation
Laboratory is the mainstream for this research where many research projects
are being developed, among which: “The Observatory in Inclusive Design”;
“Evaluation of the Accessibility and Usability Conditions of ATM
Machines”; “Design Ergonomic Project”; “Accessibility and Inclusion in
Graduation Teaching”.
In global terms, there’s a will to continue the process by developing
more research in the area, in parallel with inclusive design graduation and
pot-graduation projects (MSc and PhD projects).
16
Fernando Moreira da Silva and Rita Almendra
All the people involved in this process at Lisbon Faculty of Architecture
hope that this postural changing may contribute:
 To design new strategies and introduce the necessary
corrections in the curricula of the different taught courses;
 To develop a new way of project making, with a better
knowledge and application of the rules and standards in
which concerns accessibilities and Inclusive Deign, in a way
to allow the integration of a wide number of persons.
REFERENCES
.
2.
Resource: The Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University, USA
Andrew S. “What is Inclusive Design and how can it achieve a built environment to be
enjoyed by everyone?” Discussion Report arising from the November 200 Disability
Rights Commissions Round Table Discussion on Inclusive Design, 2002.
3. Coleman, R. Inclusive design in Human Factors in Product Design – Current practice
and Future trends, London, Taylor & Francis, pp 159-170, 1999.
4. Keate, S, Clarkson, PJ. Countering Design Exclusion: An Introduction to Inclusive
Design, UK, Springer-Verlag., 2003.
5 Steinfeld, E, Tauke, B. “Universal Designing”, Universal Design – 17 ways of thinking
and teaching, pp 165-189, Oslo, Husbanken, 2002.
6 Benktzon, M. “Designing for Our Future Selves: the Swedish Experience”, Applied
Ergonomics, 24, 1, pp.19-27, London, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.
7 Morrow, R, “Building and sustaining a learning environment for inclusive design - A
framework for teaching inclusive design within built environment courses in the UK”,
Final Report of the Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design for Centre for Education
in the Built Environment, Group Coordinator and Editor: Ruth Morrow, School of
Architecture, University of Sheffield
8 Lifchez, R. Rethinking Architecture : Design Students and Physically Disabled People,
Berkeley, California, University of California Press, 1986.
9 Oliver, M. The politics of disablement, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1990.
10 Davis, K. “On the Movement”, SWAIN,J.,FINKELSTEIN,V., FRENCH,S., and
OLIVER,M.(eds)Disabling Barriers and Enabling Environments, London, Sage
Publications in Associations with the Open University, 1993.