The
art of good design should be to make things look and feel
good, so people want to use what has been designed.
People should be able to intuitively understand how to use the design and what the design's purpose is. People should also be able to use the product. That said, the issue of design is actually a thorny subject,
because there are few hard and fast rules that govern good
design, or more accurately there are a number of generally applicable rules that act as a good basis for appropriate design but nothing substantive that is generally applicable to the situation that a person finds themselves in. Although I assert twenty Design Principles it is still useful to consider some of the underlying notions of good design. I quite like the German Company Braun's ten elements of Good design which are:
Braun's 10 Principles of Good Design
-
Good design is innovative
-
Good design enhances the usefulness of a product
-
Good design is aesthetic
-
Good design displays the logical structure of a product; its form follows its function
-
Good design is unobtrusive
-
Good design is honest
-
Good design is enduring
-
Good design is consistent right to the details
-
Good design is ecologically conscious
-
Good design is minimal design
The following
are guidelines laid down by advocates
of Universal or Inclusive design which are a good place
to start. The seven principles of Universal Design are
adequately explained by The Center for Universal Design
(1997). The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0.
Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University as the following:
PRINCIPLE
ONE: Equitable Use
The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse
abilities.
Guidelines:
1a. Provide the same means of use for all users: identical
whenever possible; equivalent when not.
1b. Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users.
1c. Provisions for privacy, security, and safety should
be equally available to all users.
1d. Make the design appealing to all users.
PRINCIPLE
TWO: Flexibility in Use
The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences
and abilities.
Guidelines:
2a. Provide choice in methods of use.
2b. Accommodate right- or left-handed access and use.
2c. Facilitate the user's accuracy and precision.
2d. Provide adaptability to the user's pace.
PRINCIPLE THREE: Simple and Intuitive Use
Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of
the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or
current concentration level.
Guidelines:
3a. Eliminate unnecessary complexity.
3b. Be consistent with user expectations and intuition.
3c. Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language
skills.
3d. Arrange information consistent with its importance.
3e. Provide effective prompting and feedback during and
after task completion.
PRINCIPLE FOUR: Perceptible Information
The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.
Guidelines:
4a. Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for
redundant presentation of essential information.
4b. Provide adequate contrast between essential information
and its surroundings.
4c. Maximize "legibility" of essential information.
4d. Differentiate elements in ways that can be described
(i.e., make it easy to give instructions or directions).
4e. Provide compatibility with a variety of techniques
or devices used by people with sensory limitations.
PRINCIPLE
FIVE: Tolerance for Error
The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences
of accidental or unintended actions.
Guidelines:
5a. Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors: most
used elements, most accessible; hazardous elements eliminated,
isolated, or shielded.
5b. Provide warnings of hazards and errors.
5c. Provide fail safe features.
5d. Discourage unconscious action in tasks that require
vigilance.
PRINCIPLE
SIX: Low Physical Effort
The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and
with a minimum of fatigue.
Guidelines:
6a. Allow user to maintain a neutral body position.
6b. Use reasonable operating forces.
6c. Minimize repetitive actions.
6d. Minimize sustained physical effort.
PRINCIPLE SEVEN: Size and Space for Approach and
Use
Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach,
manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size,
posture, or mobility.
Guidelines:
7a. Provide a clear line of sight to important elements
for any seated or standing user.
7b. Make reach to all components comfortable for any seated
or standing user.
7c. Accommodate variations in hand and grip size.
7d. Provide adequate space for the use of assistive devices
or personal assistance.
(Copyright © 1997 NC State University,
The Center for Universal Design taken from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm)
As
a starting point it is important to realise that the seven
principles have considerable impact on any design, allowing
the user to understand, be able to work and cope with
what ever the design is. As a general and generic template/set
of principles these meet the needs of most designs and
designers. Their generic quality is their strength as well as their downfall. Depending on the system being designed each principle will have varying amounts of worth. It would be rare that all the principles and sub-principles would have equal worth in an AT design. But as generic guidance they are excellent.
The
remainder of the design
pages will try to address the questions of design from
a number of different angles. What should hopefully become
clear is that design requires considerable knowledge of
the person for whom you are designing. Designing for everyone,
or a whole group of people such as 'older people' will automatically
be doomed to failure as the group you are designing for
is too large and diverse, sharing few common attributes apart from their date of birth. Designing for specific people
allows the designer to become immersed in their world
and design specifically for them! This does not follow
a prescribed model although as we demonstrate the "Social
Framework of dependability" and MDDS can be applied to designing
AT systems as well as 'smart homes'. This SHOULD NOT
be confused with the ANTI-SOCIAL
MODEL OF DISABILIY. It is considerably different as
this
and this page demonstrates. Ideally designing for an individual is hard but possible, designing for two or three people is also possible as long as each person is respected fro their differences and these differences reflects in the overall design, when the design is extended to a wider group the designs should be still based on an intensive study of individual users and the system modified to each person. It is time consuming, difficult, frustrating, costly, BUT effective and worthwhile.
The
issue of design in terms of socio-technical systems is
that the system is more than the individual parts (people
and technology). The interaction between the two elements
produce interesting and unique patterns that need to be
considered in the design. There is little point in looking
at a person who has a limp and prescribing a walking stick
if it is the fact that she is blind or deaf that is the
main concern for her or feels the stick will make her look like a disabled person.
Throwing technology at people just because it exists is a similar problem that needs to be avoided. A selling point for 'smart' homes is that they can automate everyday tasks. This is great for people who want to die of heart attacks due to the fact that they have not moved since getting these labour saving devices, but for the majority of people the ability to open and close things as well as switch them on and off is something that keeps us active. Take for example the problems that have occurred through using remote controls on televisions, where we now have many more people who suffer from depression as a result of sitting in the same place for extended periods. I hasten to add I am guilty of being one of these people and am sitting down as I write this!
For adults with disabilities and impairments the role of design is not make things automated, unless the person requires automation, rather it is to match technology to needs and aspirations, activity patterns, daily routines and aesthetics. Less is More is a great adage in the design game. Do not add more technology than is absolutely necessary to undertake the necessary action. It is very tempting to keep adding devices just in case something might happen, but the true strength of a good designer is knowing
when to start removing devices from the system.
'Universal
Design', 'Inclusive Design', 'Barrier-Free Design' are
all terms that share many elements in common and are great
starting points for considering how to design a system,
but it is important that before you become too generic,
the resident the design is being undertaken for, is considered
and becomes the starting and end point of the design process.
Some useful links:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/universaldesign/
http://trace.wisc.edu/world/gen_ud.html
http://www.universaldesign.org/
http://www.universaldesign.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design
http://www.udeducation.org/
http://www.aarp.org/families/home_design/
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/webdav/harmonise?Page/@id=40&Section/@id=1354
http://www.tiresias.org/guidelines/inclusive.htm
http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/
http://www.sensorytrust.org.uk/information/inclusive_design.html
Also have a look at:
http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~norman/
http://id.bobulate.com/readings/gooddesign.pdf
|
