Preiser W., Smith K.H. Universal Design Handbook
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 8
LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES
Jake Pauls and Edwina Juillet
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Life safety in new larger buildings is undergoing what might, in some respects, be described as a
paradigm shift, especially in greater reliance on elevators for evacuation. Such paradigm shifts are
rare in the recent history of building design.
The first edition of the Universal Design Handbook included a chapter focused on stairway safety
as one aspect of life safety, including the traditional use of stairways for evacuation; that chapter
should be referred to for basic information on stairway design (Pauls, 2001). Many more details,
along with recent stairway safety developments—most notably recent worsening safety of home
stairways and generally a failure of universal design—can be accessed via a website established by
Pauls: http://web.me.com/bldguse (accessed Sep. 30, 2009). The term standards is used here in a
broad, umbrella fashion, covering legislation, regulations, and other sets of rules affecting life safety
and usability of buildings.
8.2 LIFE SAFETY
Life safety is the term used to describe aspects of safety in buildings and other facilities that
directly impact the well-being of occupants in emergencies. Of course, there is not a clear dis-
tinction between life safety as a goal and property or mission preservation as a goal. The latter
goal must be achieved to a limited extent if the goal of life safety is to be achieved. A building
or facility must remain habitable for whatever time is needed to conduct evacuation and criti-
cal, life-protective missions. For example, institutions such as hospitals must be operationally
maintained as emergency conditions are mitigated, whether this involves evacuation or shelter-in-
place options.
Stairways have long served as places of refuge and key means of egress. Elevators—generally a
more universally designed means of access and egress—are out of service or have severely constrained
use during emergencies in many countries, including the United States. With increased accessibility
of facilities to persons with disabilities in recent decades has come increased awareness of the need
to maintain life safety beyond the traditional reliance on exit stairs. This awareness dates back to the
mid-1970s (Marchant, 1975). Efforts have focused on
8.1
8.2 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES
1. Reducing the need for mass egress by mitigating the effects of fire, earthquake, or other danger.
2. Making the exit stairs work better, a more recent development driven by ergonomists and like-
minded professionals (see Fig. 8.1).
3. Most recently, making the elevators more robust and more reliably usable in conditions that previ-
ously resulted in service shutdowns. Since 2004, this has been driven mostly by the professionals
responsible for the combined U.S. and Canadian national elevator standard, ASME A17.1/CSA
B44.
Literature on how to implement these approaches is most extensively and accessibly developed in
the first listed effort (e.g., Cote, 2008) while the second has involved the smallest number of profes-
sionals (e.g., Pauls, 2007).
Following the September 11, 2001, (“9/11”) World Trade Center (WTC) evacuations, there was
a rekindling of interest in, and activity on, life safety for people with disabilities. However, with
the exception of one brief article on the larger evacuation of the WTC Twin Towers in February
1993, there was no examination of how people with disabilities, and others assisting them, performed
(Juillet, 1993). Among the well-disseminated, anecdotal accounts of experiences of individual evacu-
ees with disabilities, that of John Abruzzo on the 69th floor of Tower 1 is remarkable and instructive.
Fortunately in relation to his 9/11 experience, his experience was captured as an audio conversation
recorded and archived by StoryCorps and otherwise, as in the instructive accounts (provided here in
Box 8.1) of his experiences in both the 1993 and 2001 evacuations.
FIGURE 8.1 Plan of 56-inch (1420-millimeter) nominal width exit stairway providing an
enlarged landing to serve as a refuge space for wheelchair users and others desiring to rest on a
landing clear of the space needed for people traversing the stair flights. This stair width allows
shoulder-to-shoulder coherent flow (depicted here), counterflow (such as by emergency respond-
ers), and overtaking movement as necessary.
Long description: Plan of 56-inch (1420-mm) nominal width, dogleg configuration exit
stairway with two flights per story and two landings turning 180° each. The exit stairway
provides an enlarged landing, at the entry door, to serve as a refuge space for a wheelchair
user and a few standees needing to rest on a landing clear of the space needed for people
traversing the stair flights. Plan views of evacuees on this stair depict how this stair width
allows shoulder-to-shoulder coherent flow, i.e., with people moving unidirectionally as a
group. The width also facilitates counterflow such as by emergency responders ascending
against the predominant descent movement and overtaking movement where some people
bypass others moving in the same direction.
LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 8.3
A troubling finding after the 2001 evacuation was that about 6 percent of the WTC Twin Tower
occupants surveyed after 9/11 reported “having a limitation that constrained their ability to evacuate”
(Averill et al., 2005); this was double the percentage reported in office building evacuation studies
by Pauls around 1970 in Ottawa, Canada. The WTC finding is especially important as New Yorkers
generally have relatively good physical fitness levels, compared to others in the United States. With
physical fitness of the general population deteriorating almost everywhere around the world, there
has been increased attention on the growing problems that a majority of the population—not only
people with conventional disabilities—will have in evacuating large buildings by means of stairs
(Pauls, 2008). While sometimes termed the obesity epidemic, the fitness deterioration is not simply
a matter of excess weight or body mass index (BMI). Extremely overweight persons will have extra
difficulty using stairs, especially in an evacuation situation, and these people pose additional safety
problems directly and indirectly to themselves and to others. Generally, the incidence of overweight
(BMI greater than or equal to 25) or obesity (BMI greater than or equal to 30) doubled between 1995
and 2005 in the United States (Centers for Disease Control, 2006).
Aside from the changing demographics in the population as a whole, those with conventional
disabilities, chiefly the inability to use stairs independently, pose difficulties. Methods for mitigating
the difficulties have been addressed in guides produced for the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) by
Juillet and others (USFA, 1995, 2002). These deal with disabilities more generally.
Since 9/11 and natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, there has been growing attention by gov-
ernment agencies and other organizations to the needs of people with disabilities in emergencies of all
kinds. Examples of this attention, beyond the USFA guides noted above, include Government Horizons,
2006; Interagency Committee on Disability Research, 2004a, 2004b; Interagency Coordinating
Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities, 2005; National Organization on
Disability, 2002, 2004; Oklahoma State University, 2007; and U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Box 8.1 Wheelchair User Escapes World Trade Center
Towers in 1993 and 2001
1993: February 13: A C 5-6 quadriplegic who relies on his electric wheelchair for mobility evacuated
from his offi ce on the 69th fl oor. He estimated his evacuation time at a little more than six hours and
reported that “Everyone evacuated from the offi ce except my manager and the fi re warden. We went to
an executive offi ce where there was no smoke and waited for about 45 minutes. Then we went into the
stairway, where I commandeered three men coming down the stairs who carried me and my wheelchair
(combined weight, 350 pounds) to the 48th or 49th fl oor. The smoke got worse and the heat increased
as we descended, and then the lights went out permanently. The stair landings were very narrow and
seemed to switch from one stairwell to another. We got down to the 43rd fl oor, and I was transferred to
a stretcher and carried the rest of the way out. It took approximately 15 people taking turns to carry me
down. It was a very slow process. But I heard no one complain about the delay due to my evacuation.”
Shortly after the 1993 bombing, a number of products and systems were purchased to aid in
the evacuation and life safety of WTC occupants. These included portable, stair descent devices,
specifi cally evacuation chairs that have two wheels for use on landings and two tracks, with special
belts, for controlled descent on stair fl ights.
2001: On September 11, he, like others on the 69th fl oor, rushed to the stairwell when the
plane hit the tower. The products and systems added since 1993 proved successful on 9/11.
The lights stayed on while he—in an evacuation chair—and his friends evacuated with only
several minutes to spare before the tower collapsed. Fortunately for him, unlike an undetermined
number of people with mobility problems being held (in triage fashion) at the 20th fl oor, he
and his colleagues chose to carry on to the ground. All those being held at that fl oor died in the
collapse. (For an interview with details of his and a colleague’s experience on 9/11, refer to the
StoryCorps audio recording at www.storycorps.org/listen/stories/coworkers-michael-curci-and-
john-abruzzo. Accessed Sep. 11, 2009.)
8.4 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES
2005. Importance grew when the U.S. President issued Executive Order 13347 on July 26, 2004,
“Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness” (Federal Register, 2004).
8.3 USE OF ELEVATORS FOR OCCUPANT EVACUATION
In relation to universal design, the most significant development—even warranting the label of a
paradigm shift—is the elevator industry and fire safety field embracing the concept of elevator use
during fire by all building occupants, not only for firefighters, through an automated system protocol
known as Elevator Evacuation Operation, or EEO. If implemented, this would be a radical departure
from current practice enshrined on signs: “In case of fire, elevators are out of service. Use exit.”
Among the early agreements is one that would require an exit stair to be directly accessed from
the same protected lobby that serves the elevators counted on for use during fires. Also, although a
bit less definitively decided, it is assumed that individual occupants can self-select whether to use
an EEO elevator for egress or an exit stair. One does not need to have some recognized physical
disability. For a listing of key building features needed to implement Elevator Evacuation Operation,
see Box 8.2.
Box 8.2 Important Conditions for Implementing
Elevator Evacuation Operation
• Building complies with ASME A17.1S-2005 and U.S. model building code 2006 or later.
• Elevators are accessed from a protected lobby that also has direct access to an exit stair.
• Building has total coverage smoke detection system complying with NFPA 72.
• Building has full automatic sprinkler protection complying with NFPA 13.
• Phase 1 recall of elevators is activated automatically by fi re alarm initiating devices in
elevator lobbies, machine rooms, and hoistways.
• An emergency voice communication system is installed for occupant notifi cation.
• Corrective actions involving occupant behavior have been evaluated.
• Numerous generic “corrective actions,” set out in ASME’s Hazard Analysis, have been
implemented, and other corrective actions have been developed for unique conditions.
• Generally there must be well-developed, effective coordination of actions by responding fi re
services, building management, and occupants.
In a universal design context, use of elevators for egress was addressed in a working meeting
and workshop at the Include 2007 Conference held in London (Pauls et al., 2007). In this paper it
was noted that “lifts (elevators) are designed to serve all occupants’ upward and downward travel
within the range of approximately 20 to 60 minutes.” This performance is much better than what
can be accomplished by stairs, even in the unrealistic case that everyone is able to use the stairs. The
time required for stair-related, total evacuation increases with population, i.e., roughly the number
of floors served, and can extend to a few hours, especially in tall or large buildings. The paper also
sets out some key requirements:
In terms of human factors or ergonomics challenges, there is good agreement that availability of relevant
and accurate information is a key aspect of egress, especially if it entails use of lifts. Thus there should
be increased discussion of “situation awareness” generally in our work on building design, operation and
emergency response. Good situation awareness means having the information that gives one the best basis
for determining current and future actions. Thus, aside from having effective means of communicating
relevant information, we need to consider attitudinal factors that will influence interpretation of informa-
tion. Here we face a basic problem with use of lifts for occupant evacuation in case of fire; we have been
fairly effectively educated, trained or conditioned not to use lifts in case of fire. How will these attitudes,
LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 8.5
which have served well in the past, now be altered and how will they be selectively altered only for the
appropriate buildings and lift systems? In part, this will require considerable intelligence in the design
of interfaces between occupants and the lift system, including dynamic signage or visual displays gener-
ally. Thus, the paradigm shift to use of lifts, together with stairs, will demand more collaboration among
design professionals and others.
An earlier paper, also presented in an international meeting, focused on critical human factors,
especially information and communication (Pauls et al. 2006). This paper, as well as the Include
2007 paper (Pauls et al., 2007), cautioned that the paradigm shift is not straightforward. Consider
the concluding comments of the 2007 paper, which apply more broadly to the implementation of
universal design in life safety generally.
Generally, networking is needed in which various professions address problems in conjunction,
individually and organizationally, with people with disabilities and other building users. Accomplishing
a paradigm shift—through technological, regulatory, and social changes—will be difficult and, if not
properly implemented, could lead to an even worse situation than we have currently. Confusion about
appropriate emergency measures among ordinary building occupants as well as facility managers,
emergency responders, and others must be effectively mitigated if not prevented during the transition
to the new paradigm. The needs for the new paradigm are varied, the problems to be solved great, and
the benefits real, and the downside risk is substantial.
8.4 CONCLUSIONS
There are mind-sets in the building industry and related fields that might delay, complicate, confuse,
and jeopardize the implementation of universal design-based life safety systems such as elevators
used in combination with exit stairs for occupant egress. One can only hope that the second, and
possible third, edition of this handbook has some success to report in relation to improved life safety
standards plus their widespread adoption, enforcement, and benefit to all building users.
8.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Averill, J., et al., “Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication,” Federal Building and Fire
Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST NCSTAR 1-7, Gaithersburg, Md.: U.S.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm. Accessed
Mar. 15, 2009.
Centers for Disease Control, “State-Specific Prevalence of Obesity among Adults—United States, 2005,”
MMWR, 55(36):985–988, Sep. 15, 2006, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5536a1.htm. Accessed
Mar. 16, 2009.
Cote, A. E. (ed.), Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed., vols. 1 and 2, Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Protection
Association, 2008.
Federal Register, “Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness,” Federal Register, 69(142), Part II,
July 26, 2004, www.nimsonline.com/docs/nims_executive_order_13347.pdf. Accessed Mar. 15, 2009.
Government Horizons, Proceedings of Emergency Preparedness and Response Conference: For People with
Disabilities, the Elderly, Pediatrics, and Animals, Arlington, Va.: Government Horizons, December 2006.
Interagency Committee on Disability Research, Proceedings of Conference: Emergency Evacuation of People
with Physical Disabilities from Buildings, Washington: Interagency Committee on Technology, National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2004a, www.icdr.us/documents/pwd-emergency-evac.pdf.
Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
Interagency Committee on Disability Research, Proceedings of State of the Art Conference: Technologies and
Strategies for Physical Transfer of Individuals with Motor Impairments, Washington: Interagency Committee
on Technology, National Institute on Disability Research, 2004b.
Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities, Preparing the
Workplace for Everyone: Accounting for the Needs of People with Disabilities, Washington: Office of Disability
8.6 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES
Employment, U.S. Department of Labor, July 2005, www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/ep/preparing.htm. Accessed
Mar. 16, 2009.
Juillet, E., “Evacuating People with Disabilities,” Fire Engineering, 126(12):100–103, Nov. 1993.
Marchant, E. W., “Fire Safety for the Handicapped,” Proceedings of Seminar, Fire Safety for the Handicapped,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1975.
National Organization on Disability, Emergency Preparedness Initiative EPI: Guide on the Special Needs of
People with Disabilities for Emergency Managers, Planners, and Responders, 2002, www.nod.org/emergency.
Accessed Sep. 15, 2009.
———, Proceedings of Conference on Emergency Preparedness for People with Disabilities, September 2004,
www.nod.org/epiconference2004/index.html. Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
Oklahoma State University, Fire Safety Solutions for People with Disabilities: How to Implement a Home Fire
Safety and Smoke Alarm Installation Program, Stillwater, Okla.: Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State
University, 2007.
Pauls, J., “Life Safety Standards and Guidelines Focused on Stairways,” in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed.,
W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001, pp. 23.1–23.20.
———, “Design Issues within the Egress Stairway Enclosure,” Proceedings of the AEI Symposium on Egress
Stairs in High-Rise Buildings, 2007, New York: Architectural Engineering Institute of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, 2007, http://web.mac.com/bldguse/Site/Downloads.html with pdf of this filed in the folder
“Pauls-Egress Papers.” Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
———, “Performance of Means of Egress Conducting the Research Needed to Establish Realistic Expectations,”
Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2008, pp. 217–228, http://web.mac.com/bldguse/Site/Downloads.html with pdf of this
filed in the folder “Pauls-Egress Papers.” Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
———, J. Fruin, and J. Zupan, “Minimum Stair Width for Evacuation, Overtaking Movement and Counterflow:
Technical Bases and Suggestions for the Past, Present and Future,” in Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics
2005, Waldau, Gattermann, Knoflacher, and Schreckenberg (eds.), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2007, pp. 57–69,
http://web.mac.com/bldguse/Site/Downloads.html with pdf of this filed in the folder “Pauls-Egress Papers.”
Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
———, D. Johnson, and E. Juillet, “Ergonomic Considerations in Use of Elevators for Occupant Evacuation of
Buildings,” Proceedings of 16th World Congress on Ergonomics, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2006, http://web.mac.
com/bldguse/Site/Downloads.html with pdf of this filed in the folder “Pauls-Egress Papers.” Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
Pauls, J., et al., “Implementing the Paradigm Shift to Use of Elevators/Lifts for Occupant Evacuation of
Buildings,” Proceedings of Include 2007, London: The Helen Hamlyn Research Centre, 2007, www.hhc.rca.
ac.uk/kt/include/2007/proceedings/paper.php?ID=1_87. Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness,” Executive
Order 13347, July 26, 2004, Washington: Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 2005, www.dhs.gov/
disabilitypreparednessicc. Accessed Mar. 15, 2009.
U.S. Fire Administration, Emergency Procedures for Employees with Disabilities in Office Occupancies, Pub.
No. FA-154, 1995, www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa-154.pdf. Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
———, Orientation Manual for First Responders on the Evacuation of People with Disabilities, Pub. FA-235,
2002, www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/FA-235-508.pdf. Accessed Mar. 16, 2009.
CHAPTER 9
THE UNIVERSAL DESIGN
THESAURUS: CREATING A
DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE
FOR OUR FIELD
Richard Duncan, Barbara Brenny, and Hugh Kelsey
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Hold up a commonly recognized symbol of America, its “stars and stripes,” before ten people.
Distribute index cards to them, and ask that they describe the object in five words or fewer. It is
likely that one will get many different answers for what is a familiar cultural icon—American
flag, U.S. flag, United States flag, etc. That exercise, which one of the authors has employed as
a teaching tool, shows that describing things adequately and consistently is less simple than may
be initially understood. Classification of objects, events, etc. is, therefore, of more than mere
academic interest. It has real-world implications for people seeking information in an increas-
ingly interconnected world.
The field of universal design, little more than 20 years old, is newer and less iconic than our flag.
It is challenged by misunderstandings and misperceptions about what it is and isn’t. Arising in the
1980s from decades of work on accessibility and assistive technology, universal design has struggled
to establish an identity separate from its origins. In particular, it is too often associated with nar-
rowly targeted design features, useful only to those with significant disabilities, especially mobility
impairments. In addition, universal design is burdened by perceptions that it is only concerned with
functionality. The field needs to strongly communicate its emphasis on benefits for everyone and
the importance of design integration and market appeal. In doing so, universal design can establish
itself as a primary design paradigm of the twenty-first century. The creation of a distinct and well-
articulated thesaurus will be a step in that direction.
The Universal Design Thesaurus (UDT) is a newly created vocabulary for describing, classify-
ing, and organizing information for and about the field of universal design. This chapter explains
the importance of classification, how the UDT was created, and how it can be used by theoreticians,
strategists, and practitioners as a common descriptive language. In doing so, the chapter describes
how a thesaurus of terms is derived from a taxonomical hierarchy, how the UDT can be reviewed
and modified over time, and how early drafts of the taxonomy and thesaurus were reviewed by
peers in the field.
9.1
9.2 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES
9.2 THE NEED FOR A UNIVERSAL DESIGN THESAURUS
The Universal Design Thesaurus was the inspiration of universal design (UD) practitioner Richard
Duncan, archivist/librarian Hugh Kelsey, and librarian Barbara Brenny. The development of the
UDT emerged from a discourse of three separate but complementary disciplines: universal design,
library science, and public health.
Under a 2005 contract with The National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental
Disabilities (NCBDDD, 2009), Duncan provided 250 images from the Center for Universal
Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University (NCSU) to the Public Health Image Library
(PHIL, 2009) of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Upon consideration
of how to label the images for web storage and retrieval, preliminary research confirmed that,
beyond the language and text of the UD principles (UDI, 2009) themselves, the field did not
have an established body of terms (thesaurus) with which to label content. While the concept of
universal design proximately emerged from the world of environmental accessibility, access code
compliance, and the disability movement in general, its development, acceptance, and prolifera-
tion have been hampered, in part, by the dominant use of taxonomies from those other disciplines.
As such, universal design has been too often misunderstood as a field that is concerned with
“disability-only,” with accessibility, and that it has an assistive technology focus. A vocabulary
to suggest otherwise was lacking. The development and maturity of the field of universal design
itself demanded its own taxonomy and thesaurus.
Kelsey suggested that if no established vocabulary existed to adequately describe the photographs,
one should be created. Kelsey searched the field for an existing body of subject terms. Finding none,
Duncan recruited Brenny in 2006, a visual resources cataloger specializing in thesaurus creation,
to build a taxonomy and thesaurus. Its purpose was to provide access to knowledge through the
standardization of descriptive terminology. The hope is that it will become a standard for managing
information throughout the field.
9.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF CLASSIFICATION
Taxonomy is the area of scholarship that establishes the hierarchical relationship of objects or con-
cepts that share similar characteristics. The goal in creating a taxonomy is to devise a classification
system for naming and organizing things into groups. In the example below, the larger category
clothing is composed of specific types of clothing, such as shirts, pants, etc., which can be treated
even more specifically as blouses and polo shirts under the broader heading shirts.
• Clothing
䊊
Shirts
䊐
Blouses
䊐
Polo shirts
䊐
T-shirts
䊐
Tunics
䊊
Pants
䊐
Jeans
䊐
Dress slacks
䊐
Cargo pants
䊊
Dresses
䊐
Kaftans
䊐
Muumuus
䊐
Formal gowns
THE UNIVERSAL DESIGN THESAURUS: CREATING A DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE FOR OUR FIELD 9.3
䊊
Skirts
䊐
Mini skirts
䊐
Knee-length
䊐
Ankle-length
Taxonomies create categories that help the searcher identify and discover digital objects through a
navigation scheme or search system. A thesaurus of terms based on a taxonomical hierarchy enhances the
ability of practitioners within a given field to gain access to its body of knowledge. It does this because it
defines and employs commonly understood terms and reflects decisions about how they will be used. It
places them in a hierarchy and chooses between similar terms and concepts. The terms are then applied
to content whether that consists of photographs, reports, or even three-dimensional objects.
A thesaurus contains a vocabulary of controlled indexing terms (subject headings), formally
organized so relationships between terms are explicit. These relationships, as applied to the clothing
example above, include the following:
BT = broader term—the term clothing is a BT for pants
NT = narrower term—the term pants is a NT for clothing
RT = related term—the term zippers is a RT for pants
UF = used for—indicates preferred term—the term tunics is UF pullovers
SN = scope note—description of term
USE = refers user to preferred term—for the term pullovers USE tunics
Common classification systems include the general collection Dewey Decimal System used in
U.S. public libraries, the U.S. Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH, 2009) adopted by most
U.S. university and college libraries, and the specialized collection thesauri of the Medical Subject
Headings (MeSH, 2009) of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), the Art & Architecture
Thesaurus (AAT, 2009) of the J. Paul Getty Trust, and the LC Thesaurus of Graphic Materials I &
II (Library of Congress Thesaurus, 2009).
9.4 FROM TAXONOMY TO THESAURUS: APPLYING
UD TERMINOLOGY
Consistent with professional library practice, Brenny created a four-tier taxonomy with the top lev-
els being nonresidential, residential, product design, and transportation vehicles. Brenny made the
taxonomy so it could be easily expanded to accommodate additional terms as needed. Much of the
terminology, especially terminology related to the built environment, was borrowed from the AAT and
LCSH. It was also modeled after other taxonomies including one that she had created to classify images
of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, industrial design, and graphic design. As it devel-
oped, the Universal Design Thesaurus was smaller in size and scope than the aforementioned thesauri,
because the UDT focused on a single discipline rather than a multitude of print and visual materials.
In selecting terms for the taxonomy, the need arose to provide some flexibility for those instances
when the precise type of building was unknown. An example of this is the employment of two generic
entries under nonresidential: public entrances and public restrooms. There were multiple instances
where the language of UD was chosen over something more closely related to AAT terminology. For
instance, UD practitioners and other professionals categorize certain environments as either improved
or unimproved, while the AAT does not subdivide terminology in this way. In the UDT, the objects
parks and rest stops were allotted those terms as descriptors. Service stations were also conceived as
either self-serve or full-serve, and those terms were used for that type of nonresidential establishment.
There were also several instances where UD practitioners felt certain AAT and LCSH terms
seemed out of date. This was most noticeable in terms falling under the headings medical spaces and
welfare buildings. The sections on product design and transportation vehicles were straightforward
and presented few problems. The team originally put transportation vehicles under the heading of