2A. Accomodations vs UD

Source: The Body of Knowledge

The text of the BoK offers us surprisingly little. They link together the concept of Universal Design along with several of extentions to the initial idea: Inclusive design, Design for all, Human-centered design, and Life-span design. The BoK points out that this framework is popular in Europe, pointing to the EN 17161:2016 Design for All standard.

Accessibility is positioned as being closely related to universal design. Where Accessibility is primarily focused on Disabled people, Universal design doesn't have as specific as a scope (perhaps internationaliztion could also fit under this framework). Usability is also adjacent to these two ideas with emphasis on 'ease of use' though it does not consider accessibility barriers as part of this equation by default.

Accessibility may need a bit more than universal design in order to be achieved. Certain specific accomodations may be needed at times-- these are known as individualized accommmodations. The Body of Knowledge argues that universal design can reduce the ammount of individualized accomodations that need to be implemented.

Now, let's look at the linked resources.

Source: University of Cambridge, What is Inclusive Design?

Relevant to our studies is the subheading 'Comparison with 'Universal Design'' that makes the claim that within the context of web design, inclusive design and universal design as well as 'design for all' are essentially synonyms.

The distinction lays in that inclusive design always first identifies a target population into account and designs with them in mind. Universal design' never considers a target population other than the general population

This source argues that the inclusive design philosophy is more pragmatic, and perhaps more honest. It recognizes that there are times where it is more appropriate to target a more specialized population within the development of a product, because financial constraints limit how truly 'universalizing' experiences can be.

Inclusive design does not suggest that it is always possible (or appropriate) to design one product to address the needs of the entire population

Inclusive design partially demands that specialized products and design are produced and incorporated into the inital product development cycle, producing an inclusive product family that includes specialized versions.

We can think of this kind of approach as being less remedial in nature, and more following the 'provide comparable experience' axiom within the seven Inclusive Design Principles.

Source: Accomodations under the ADA

From the US Department of Labour, we are introduced to the idea of 'accomodation.' By nature, accommodations are modification appended to the original design of the workflow or environment. Hence they are not within the same frame as 'Universal Design.' The Department of Labour does touch on the fact that all employees, and not just the employee that the modification is instituted for, can benefit from the accommodation.

This doesn't really require employers to take the initiative to anticipate potential barriers that might arise, and the entire onus to initiate the accomodation falls onto the Disabled employee or job applicant. Sometimes this approach is most appropriate. Think about it; it would be weird to provide live ASL interpretation for every single interview if neither the interviewer or interviewee knew ASL.

Source: University of Washington, Universal Design vs Accomodation

Fascinating. This source defines Universal Design with the exact same wording that the British Standards Institute uses to define Inclusive Design. Just goes to show how inseparable these two ideas are, and how little space they've had to grow into separate concepts on a macro-level.

The University of Washington is specifically concerned with the domain of education and seemingly also specifically includes EAL speakers as a beneficiary of Universal Design.

For example, designing web resources in accessible formats as they are developed means that no re-development is necessary if a blind student enrolls in the class. Planning ahead can be less time-consuming in the long run.

As the other sources corroborate, Universal Design is a planning technique, not a remedial technique.

Source: University of Washington: Accessible, Usable and Universal Design

This article compares accessible design, usable design, and universal design as 'similar though distinct concepts.'

Universal design is defined just as it is defined in the UW's other article on the subject.

Accessible design is presented as design focused on the needs of Disabled people. The source puts extra emphasis on the 'compliance' framework of accessibility as introduced by things like the ADA and Section 508.

Meanwhile, Usable design focuses on effectiveness, efficiency, consistancy, and satisfaction with which user flows can be seen out. There is no primary focus on accessibility. In fact, Disabled users are often left out and not a consideration. The UW acknowledges that within the Usability sphere, this is slowly changing. More and more usability advocates are waking up to the need to consider accessibility as well, and to include Disabled users in their usability tests.

Source: UNCRPD Article 2 Definitions

Again, we see the same definition of Universal Design (Britain uses the same definition to define Inclusive Design). I'll present it here in full. It comes up often enough to be worth commiting fully to memory

the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design

It also defines 'reasonable accomodation' as modification when needed in particular cases, with the 'reasonable' caveat referring to the fact that the modification should 'not impose disproportionate or undue burden.'

Source: W3C Accessibility Fundamentals: Accessibility, Usability, Inclusion

In 'Distinctions and Overlaps,' W3C describes explicitly defines 'Inclusion' to go beyond just accessibility. It includes quality of technology, digital skills, classs and socioeconomic barriers, geographical, demographic and language barriers. 'Accesibility' describes only one kind of barrier in this grand kaleidescope of potential perception issues: those barriers that are encountered because a person is Disabled.

Usability is all about user experience design and is a field that largely excludes the unique experiences of Disabled people. But 'Usability's tenants of ensuring product design is effective, efficient and satisfying, are important ideas to port over into the realm of accessibility. Accessibility typically has the effect of improving usability for everyone, so the fields are theoretically very complementary. In practice, Usability as a field and culture has not gotten to a point where it sees Accessibility as a part of its purvue.

The article suggests also that some accessibility efforts are too focused in the technical aspects, and that 'human interaction aspect[s are] often lost.' The authors suggest 'Usable Accessibility' as a paradigm where usability and accessibility are harmonious concepts integrated at product conception, not just left to the technical remedialists after the product has already gone live.

Source: CENCENELEC: Design for All

This page has little to offer except to present 'Design for All' as a synonym for 'Universal Design.' The page offers no distinction between these two concepts and doesn't really add anything that we haven't covered up to this point.