Our Thinking: Designing for inclusivity
Inclusivity in design is no longer a desirable feature or a ‘nice to have’. Nor is it something that is a one-time task. It’s also not about simply ticking all the boxes to pass on the regulated accessibility markers.
It is an ongoing commitment and a living process to ensure equal access and opportunity for everyone.
I recently had the opportunity to reflect on what inclusivity looks like in practice by assisting with a panel as part of Melbourne Design Week.
We need to do more to include more users’ perspectives
A proactive approach to co-design is needed to usher in the changes associated with inclusivity.
A large part of this approach centres on including more users and the experiences, challenges and considerations that make up their differing perspectives.
As designers, we need to be aware of the multiplicity of ways we design things so that they fit different people. We also need to be open to personalising things so multiple people can enjoy those places.
Logically, this means we need to ask more people who aren’t using a space or facility about their needs, why they may not feel safe, included or a sense of belonging in a space, and how this can be improved.
This makes a lot of sense. But we know from experience that it will require a significant shift in the systems, governance and briefing processes that inform the entire design process. Typically, for this to happen, this direction will need to start with the briefing and continue through every subsequent stage.
Better design requires a different kind of design table
“If we were all designing inclusively, we’d be designing better spaces and places.”
Inclusive co-design isn’t just about gathering and amplifying the voices of more diverse users.
We also need to be cognisant of who is on the design team and how their voices are incorporated. The design systems we use as designers are created for certain people. They also prioritise certain elements over others. While something might look beautiful, it doesn't necessarily make it functional, or ensure it operates in service of all communities and their particular needs.
By including more different voices at the design table, we can expand the processes and design systems, their thinking and priorities from the very beginning of the process. This helps to both cut down on missed opportunities, incorrect assumptions and reduce the numbers and types of users sitting in the margins of power and representation.
Ticking the boxes doesn’t equal inclusivity
We do many things to comply with the standards pertaining to accessibility. But this doesn’t mean that people are at the centre of the design process or the thinking that goes into it.
A large part of accessibility assurance is about ticking boxes for handrails, egress points and toilet facilities. But minimal requirements need to be considered as just that – the bare minimum.
Minimal standards are an excellent place to start when it comes to inclusivity in design, but they should be considered a jumping off point to consider all people in the design. It’s worth remembering that simply meeting minimum compliance won’t guarantee the end design is accessible, universal or inclusive. Just look at the SCUH court case for more context – every accessibility box was ticked, but it still failed on the inclusivity front.
To engage authentically with all users takes time. To design inclusively also takes time. But it’s time well spent to ensure more people have a seat at the design table, and everyone feels welcomed in our spaces of work and play.