Preiser W., Smith K.H. Universal Design Handbook

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

5.4 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES

For the convention to be implemented, states’ parties accept certain general principles that set out

their obligations. The most general of these is one common to most human rights conventions speci-

fied in Article 4, that states’ parties undertake to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative, and

other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present convention.

A number of rather specific principles are directly relevant to universal design. They include the

obligation to undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, ser-

vices, equipment, and facilities, which should require the minimum possible adaptation and the least

cost to meet the specific needs of a person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use, and

to promote universal design in the development of standards and guidelines.

5.6 ACCESSIBILITY IN THE CONVENTION

Standard Rule 5 concerns accessibility. This highlights the central role of accessibility in achieving

equalization of opportunities and says that states should recognize the overall importance of acces-

sibility in the process of the equalization of opportunities in all spheres of society. For persons with

disabilities of any kind, states should introduce programs of action to make the physical environment

accessible and should undertake measures to provide access to information and communication.

This carried over to the convention as Article 9 on accessibility. The general obligation is

1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of

life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access,

on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and

communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and

to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.

These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers

to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

(a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools,

housing, medical facilities and workplaces

(b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emer-

gency services

The convention and the rules’ focus are on the role of the state rather than on society generally

and try to specify what states can do, within the limitations of state roles. Government responsibility

is clearer in terms of physical environment than in terms of information and communication. Both

aspects, however, are relevant to universal design. If principles of universal design are included in

all government regulations of the physical environment in all countries, clearly accessibility will be

enhanced. Similarly, if Principles of Universal Design are included when information and communi-

cation systems are developed, accessibility will be ensured. The convention states that governments

have a responsibility to legislate accessibility standards to

(a) Develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for

the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public

(b) Ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the

public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities

The rules did not specify whether the standards and guidelines should be applied only to new con-

struction or should involve retrofitting old constructions. Persons with disabilities were clear in their

belief that the standards should apply to all areas within the purview of governments, and this is now

incorporated into the convention.

The convention specifies that states should provide training for stakeholders on accessibility

issues facing persons with disabilities. It is clear that a number of means are available, including

codifying, assembling, and distributing information; ensuring that accessible design is included in

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 5.5

the curricula of architectural and engineering schools; and including knowledge about accessibility

in certifying examinations for professionals.

The accessibility norms regarding communication are focused on ensuring that information pre-

sentation designs accommodate various disabilities. The rule states that states should develop strate-

gies to make information services and documentation accessible for different groups of persons with

disabilities. States should encourage the media, especially television, radio, and newspapers, to make

their services accessible and should ensure that new computerized information and service systems

offered to the general public either are made initially accessible or are adapted to be made accessible

to persons with disabilities. The convention contains numerous similar provisions although not in

the same detail as the rules.

The accessibility norms in the rules emphasize accessibility to public spaces but are less clear on

norms and standards that can be applied in, e.g., private housing or nonpublic aspects of the private

sector. These are areas where implementation of universal design would be encouraged only indi-

rectly by the rules or the convention.

5.7 IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

While the convention has fewer details, the part of the rules dealing with implementation measures

includes a number of norms that have relevance for universal design and its implementation, empha-

sizing the importance of action at the local level and the need to support local programs by preparing

and disseminating material on accessibility, among other things.

Rule 14, on policy making and planning, states that the ultimate responsibility of states for the

situation of persons with disabilities does not relieve others of their responsibility. Anyone in charge

of services, activities, or the provision of information in society should be encouraged to accept

responsibility for making such programs available to persons with disabilities and that public policies

and programs should reinforce this.

5.8 MONITORING MECHANISM

Implementing the international norms in the context of universal design involves more than knowing

the convention and the Standard Rules. It involves using them to obtain leverage to influence public

policy and private attitudes in favor of actions that will improve accessibility. This means taking

advantage of the monitoring mechanisms found in the convention.

International human rights treaties inevitably have monitoring mechanisms that are instruments

for implementation. The convention establishes two types of monitoring mechanisms. First, at the

national level, Article 33 specifies that states’ parties shall, in accordance with their legal and admin-

istrative systems, maintain, strengthen, designate, or establish, within the state party, a framework,

including one or more independent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote, protect, and monitor

implementation of the present convention. These mechanisms are expected to provide a venue for

groups and individuals to review government compliance with obligations under the convention,

including those related to universal design.

Second, at the international level the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been

established and, like other human rights treaty bodies, will review periodic reports by states’ parties of

their compliance with obligations. The first of these reports for each state party is due within two years

of ratification of the convention and thereafter every four years. The monitoring body will review the

reports in what is usually termed a constructive dialogue where the experts ask questions and make

suggestions on how the state can improve its implementation of the convention’s provisions.

For most human rights treaty bodies, the review process provides an opportunity for national and

international groups to provide information that can help focus the dialogue and thereby influence

national implementation.

5.6 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES

5.9 CONCLUSIONS

When the only international norms on disability were the Standard Rules, the task of those advocating

for universal design was more complex since the rules were only morally, rather than legally, binding.

The entry-into-force of the convention provides more substantive guidance on national obligations,

a legal basis for action, and a set of institutions that can be used to ensure that states’ parties live up

to their obligations.

Persons interested in both universal design and the implementation of international norms for

equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities should make an effort to understand the

convention and the Standard Rules and find ways to apply them to their particular circumstances. If

their country is not a party to the convention, they should work to have it ratify and once it has done

so, use the monitoring mechanisms to advance the cause of universal design.

5.10 RESOURCES

High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/

CRPDIndex.aspx

Persons with Disabilities, United Nations. www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/

CHAPTER 6

U.S. ACCESSIBILITY CODES AND

STANDARDS: CHALLENGES FOR

UNIVERSAL DESIGN

John P. S. Salmen

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States has been a crucible for the birth of the universal design movement. The Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) has brought great attention to the concept of accessibility. Some people

would like to see a similar regulatory approach applied to universal design; however, the lessons

learned in the United States indicate that effective implementation of accessibility codes and stan-

dards is dependent upon the education of and the availability of appropriately formatted information

to those who must create or implement the design. This chapter highlights the regulatory processes

that result in prescriptive standards, contrasts these with performance criteria, and identifies the chal-

lenges facing designers and developers in an increasingly global economy.

6.2 BACKGROUND: ACCESSIBILITY VERSUS UNIVERSAL DESIGN

There is a profound difference between universal design and accessibility. Accessibility is a func-

tion of compliance with regulations or criteria that establish a minimum level of design necessary

to accommodate people with disabilities. Universal design, however, is the art and practice of

design to accommodate the widest variety and number of people throughout their life spans. It can

be thought of as the process of embedding choice for all people into the things we create. As more

is learned about human needs and abilities, and as technologies develop, the practice of universal

design improves, evolves, and changes. In truth, it might be better to think of this field as “universal

designing,” so as to focus on the decision-making process rather than on some end product that may

be improved in the future. The term universal designing was coined in 1997, by Edward Steinfeld,

during a meeting of faculty and advisers to the Universal Design Education Project (see Fig. 6.1) in

Boston, Massachusetts (Steinfeld, 2008).

The more designers know about users, the better they can design. But no one person can ever

“know it all.” This reality demands collaborative efforts among designers, environmental decision

makers, and users as the diversity and complexity of our global society increase. In this fluid context,

it is necessary to establish flexible criteria for what constitutes a universal design, allowing universal

design to lead the march toward an ever-receding goal of increasingly good design that modifies the

environment to fit the needs of its users.

6.1

6.2 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES

6.3 HISTORY OF ACCESSIBILITY CODES IN THE UNITED STATES

Accessibility codes are a relatively new phenomenon, appearing only in the last 40 years of the twentieth

century. The first accessibility technical standard in the United States was American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) A117.1, Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable

by the Physically Handicapped, published in 1961. While ANSI A117.1 (1961) was not immediately

adopted, it became the model for nearly all the accessibility codes and regulations that followed.

Accessibility standards were a direct outgrowth of the changing demographics that followed advances

in medical technology. Medical technology allowed many people to live who otherwise would have died

in World War II, the Korean war, and the polio epidemic of the early 1950s (see Fig. 6.2). For the first

time in history, there was a large population of young Americans using wheelchairs. Public and private

efforts for veterans and other survivors provided rehabilitation and educational opportunities, resulting in

a large, well-educated population of young people with disabilities who would not accept discriminatory

practices that limited their participation in society. They took advantage of the changing landscape of U.S.

politics and opinion, inspired by the civil rights movement of the 1960s that culminated in the passage of

the landmark U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was the first legislation prohibiting discrimination based

on race; it established the foundation for future civil rights–based laws. With technical standards available

and the nondiscrimination concept affirmed, accessibility regulations development began.

Laws, Regulations, and Standards

In the United States, there are currently three formal levels of guidance that affect the accessibility of

the built environment—laws, regulations, and standards. Laws are promulgated by a legislative body

such as the U.S. Congress or a state legislature to address a public concern. The ADA was passed

in 1990 by the U.S. Congress to address discrimination against people with disabilities. Regulations

are usually created by an enforcement agency of a government entity to implement a law. Standards

are technical criteria defining compliance for an issue area. Standards that have received broad input

FIGURE 6.1 Universal design education project meeting.

Long description: This photo shows meeting attendees gathered around two tables and turning to face the

camera.

U.S. ACCESSIBILITY CODES AND STANDARDS: CHALLENGES FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN 6.3

during their development are considered to be more dependable, credible, and authoritative. One

balanced process that ensures consideration of all input is called consensus-based standards making,

in which all affected parties have input and a vote on the standard.

ANSI A117.1—Where It All Started

After the development of the first ANSI standard in 1961, technical criteria of accessibility were

incrementally refined and expanded over time, through a back-and-forth process between private

organizations and federal agencies. On the private side, the ANSI A117 standard was referenced or

adopted for most of the construction regulations known as model building codes. On the federal side,

the ANSI standard was also used as a basis for regulations, including the Minimum Guidelines and

Requirements for Accessible Design (MGRAD) in 1981, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard

(UFAS) in 1985, and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) in 1991.

ANSI versus ADAAG

From 1994 to 1996, the ANSI A117 Committee and the ADAAG Review Federal Advisory

Committee established by the Access Board, which were simultaneously revising both the ANSI

A117.1 standard and the ADAAG, worked together to substantially harmonize the format, organiza-

tion, and technical requirements of the two documents. This resulted in a 1998 version of the ANSI

standard and a corresponding set of proposals for revisions to the ADAAG, which were published as

the 2004 ADAAG in July of that year.

State and Local Building Codes

Disability and accessibility advocates have been especially effective at the state and local levels as

code officials grapple with the needs of citizens with disabilities to ensure access through building

codes and statutes. During the 1970s, state and municipal building authorities adopted their own ver-

sions of the early ANSI A117.1 standards, often influenced by anecdotal but emotionally persuasive

evidence presented by local advocates as missing criteria that are necessary to make buildings acces-

sible. Unfortunately, almost no two versions were alike, and the plethora of regulations led to a design

and construction nightmare in the 1970s and 1980s when developers, designers, and manufacturers

were unable to standardize any design details that could remain the same across state borders, and

sometimes between localities within the same state (see Fig. 6.3).

FIGURE 6.2 Korean war soldier.

Long description: This photo from the Korean war shows a U.S. soldier, from his chest up,

aiming a rifle from a bunker through the grass. Mountains are in the background.

6.4 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES

In the early 1990s, the differences between accessibility codes diminished as states and localities

adopted without modification later versions of ANSI A117.1 and the 1991 ADAAG. In 2000, the

International Code Council replaced the three previously competing “national” building codes with

the International Building Code (IBC). The IBC adopted ANSI A117.1 (1998 and later versions)

as its accessibility criteria, resulting in widespread adoption of a consistent set of criteria that is

very similar to the 2004 ADAAG. Most states and municipalities have adopted the IBC or the 1991

ADAAG, However, at the turn of the millennium, it is still impossible for a single design to be placed

anywhere in the United States, because in almost every instance, states and municipalities have

continued to add local amendments and interpretations to “enhance” their access requirements. The

unfortunate result of these enhancements is the creation of ambiguity and conflict.

How Minimums Become Maximums

Accessibility regulations typically establish minimum criteria that are often perceived as or become

absolutes, or maximums, in the building industry. Often, when facing compliance with a regulation

that is not part of the intended development program, building owners or developers tend to provide no

more space, material, or equipment than is needed. Designers are subsequently directed to be as effi-

cient as possible and to design no more than the regulations require. This forces the designers to design

the facility to the minimum requirements, resulting in the minimums becoming the maximums.

FIGURE 6.3 Bathroom with a vertical grab bar.

Long description: A photo of an accessible toilet with two horizontal

grab bars that are positioned on the walls behind and beside the toilet. On

the wall beside the toilet there is a vertical grab bar above the horizontal

grab bar and a toilet paper dispenser below the horizontal grab bar.

U.S. ACCESSIBILITY CODES AND STANDARDS: CHALLENGES FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN 6.5

Civil Rights versus Building Codes

The ADA is a civil rights law. The civil rights terminology of the ADA states that all people, regardless

of their abilities, should have access to goods and services provided by businesses. The regulations

promulgated by the Department of Justice and the technical assistance for voluntary compliance are

intended to provide guidance to building designers and owners on how to meet the broad civil rights

requirements of the law. This places a difficult responsibility on designers and building owners, who,

for the most part, have never studied law or civil rights interpretations.

Designers and building owners are responsible for providing facilities and spaces that are safe for

the public to use, and they rely on the building codes to guide them in this mandate. The civil rights

nature of the ADA and the resemblance of its criteria to building codes lead many to believe that

compliance with only the letter of the law will ensure compliance. Sometimes, unfortunately, this is

not the case. When faced with ADA Title III lawsuits, U.S. courts are often turning to the spirit rather

than the letter of the law (see Chap. 7 by Mazumdar and Geis).

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the ADA enforcement agency, the Department of Justice

(DOJ), does not provide definitive interpretations unless legal action is underway. Even if a state build-

ing code has been certified by the DOJ as meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of the

ADA standards, local building officials are not empowered to allow variances from the design criteria.

Furthermore, these officials’ interpretations can be challenged if the DOJ, in responding to a complaint,

believes that the ADA civil rights requirements have not been met. However, if a DOJ-certified building

code is followed, that fact can be used as rebuttable evidence if a complaint is filed.

This situation makes the practice of architecture and the operation of buildings increasingly difficult

and costly. There is little certainty of compliance, outside of literal adherence to the prescriptive criteria,

and great risk of legal action by anyone who feels that the design or operation of the facility creates

an environment that limits his or her “equal enjoyment” and thus violates his or her civil rights. In the

lawsuit cases of PVA v. Ellerbe Beckett and Lara et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., designers and developers

who had followed the letter of the law in the design of arenas and stadium theaters (and, in the Cinemark

case, had complied with a DOJ-certified building code) were sued by disability advocates. The advocates

maintained that the location of the seats did not provide a “comparable line of sight” to that provided to

standing spectators in the arena and most of the other attendees in the cinemas (see Fig. 6.4).

FIGURE 6.4 Accessible seating at a stadium-style movie theater.

Long description: This photos show three people (Cynthia Buddington, Connie

Caldwell, and Kermit Mohn of Montgomery County, Maryland) sitting side by side in

the front row of a movie theater with stadium-style seating behind them. Two of the

people use wheelchairs and are sitting next to each other in the theater’s wheelchair

seating locations. One person is sitting in the adjacent companion seating location.

6.6 PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES

6.4 PERFORMANCE VERSUS PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA

For many years, a debate has been ongoing in the U.S. design and construction community regarding

the best format for building codes—performance or prescriptive. Simply stated, performance codes

identify the ultimate operation or function of an element or space, whereas prescriptive codes explain to

a greater or lesser degree how a space or element must be designed to satisfy the codes. For example, a

performance code might say that a wall assembly must be able to withstand a fire for a specific period

of time. A prescriptive code would say that the wall must be constructed of specific materials organized

in a specific design, such as two layers of ½-inch gypsum wallboard over a 4-inch metal stud wall.

It is often easier to write performance criteria, because the concept of how an element or space

should operate usually can be easily described. However, it is often more difficult to evaluate and enforce

performance criteria because the designer or building official must understand how all the individual

elements work and how they work with one another as a system. As building technology becomes

increasingly sophisticated, materials and assemblies of materials may have characteristics that are not

readily apparent or easily understood.

Prescriptive codes, on the other hand, are very tedious to develop and write because the language

must be exact and yet applicable to a broad variety of situations. Prescriptive codes are easier to

follow and enforce because they require less understanding of the function or purpose of the design

and rely instead on evaluation of whether the design complies with the written letter of the law. U.S.

accessibility codes have tended to be prescriptive. On the contrary, the Global Universal Design

Commission’s voluntary Universal Design Standards are performance-based standards.

Disability advocates have argued that there is a large information gap between people with dis-

abilities and the design and construction industry, regarding the needs and abilities of people with

disabilities. This gap makes it difficult, they argue, for designers to produce designs that meet the

intent of performance-based codes. Disability advocates also prefer prescriptive standards because

they give clear evidence of compliance or discrimination. This argument is also presented by build-

ing officials who desire easily interpreted and therefore easily enforceable standards.

Unfortunately, prescriptive criteria can stifle design creativity. Where the design of a facility or element

is rigidly specified, there is little opportunity for investigation of alternative or innovative designs, or use of

new materials or products, without risking misinterpretation and noncompliance. Although there are sec-

tions in most accessibility codes that allow equivalent designs, there is no generally accepted methodology

to determine what is equivalent. Section 2.2 of the ADA standards accepts equivalent facilitation, which is

stated as follows: “Departures from particular technical and scoping requirements of this guideline by the

use of other designs and technologies are permitted where the alternative designs and technologies used

will provide substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the facility.” Few building owners

or design firms have the knowledge base to be confident in attempting an alternate design. The GUDC

voluntary Universal Design Standards are performance-based and encourage innovation by rewarding

alternative solutions that increase usability.

6.5 THE FUTURE OF STANDARDS

Existing prescriptive accessibility standards have not encouraged designers to practice universal

design. There is hope that the performance-based GUDC voluntary Universal Design Standards can

depend on free market demand to create an environment in which universally designed facilities are

recognized, appreciated, and sought.

6.6 CONCLUSION

It is the author’s opinion that most building designers, developers, and construction professionals

lack an understanding of the changing needs and abilities of our society, and thus of how to develop

appropriate universal design solutions. The present generation of designers and facility owners and

operators has had little involvement with and, consequently, little understanding of the needs of the

U.S. ACCESSIBILITY CODES AND STANDARDS: CHALLENGES FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN 6.7

growing populations of aging people or of people with disabilities. The problem would be more eas-

ily resolved if responsibility for environmental decisions that impact users were centralized. With

the civil rights nature of the ADA, however, the range of environmental decision makers expands

dramatically, as does legal risk. Maintenance workers can unwittingly replace a movable trash recep-

tacle in a position where it blocks an accessible route, thus negating the carefully designed plans of

the architect. A new sales clerk can inadvertently violate the civil rights of a person with a disabil-

ity by placing a promotional display on the lowered writing surface portion of a checkout counter

required for use by people of short stature or customers who use wheelchairs.

Further regulation will never resolve these types of problems. The only long-term solution is appro-

priately targeted educational materials and programs. Architects and sales clerks need very different

kinds of information and education, yet they both need education. Designers of amusement parks need

information that is different from that needed by designers of multifamily housing. Naval architects

attempting to design more accessible cruise vessels have concerns and constraints that are vastly differ-

ent from those of landscape architects who are designing interpretive trails in a national forest.

While basic principles, such as the turning radius of an average wheelchair, may be the same

everywhere, the information needed by individuals who are expected to apply that information is

very different. Anyone who has studied accessibility standards will recognize that parts of them

are difficult to understand, even for people who are familiar with accessibility criteria. Finding all the

information that is appropriate for the specific situation of concern can sometimes be difficult and

frustrating. There are times when an obscure though important section is pointed out only after the

design is constructed. As information technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, it is possible to

format and deliver appropriate types and levels of information for each person along the environ-

mental decision-making chain. When designers need technical criteria or examples, they should be

cross-referenced and easily available, just as when maintenance workers are replacing a lavatory,

they should be able to easily find the correct mounting height without having to search through vol-

umes of technical criteria. Once society begins to develop appropriate informational and educational

tools, there will be more widespread accessibility, and, eventually, a demand by consumers for the

superior performance of universal design will overtake the need for prescriptive standards.

6.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 1991, www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/

adaag.htm

Americans with Disabilities Act/Architectural Barriers Act Guidelines 2004, www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm

Council of American Building Officials (CABO) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI), CABO/

ANSI A117.1-1992, American National Standard: Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, New York:

ANSI, 1992; www.iccsafe.org

Goldsmith, S., “The Bottom Up Methodology of Universal Design,” in The Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed.,

W. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Lara et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., District of Texas EP-97-CA-502-H.

Steinfeld, E., “Accessible Buildings for People with Walking and Reaching Limitations,” Washington: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 1979.

——, “Universal Design—Practice and Method,” in A. Helal et al. (eds.), Engineering Handbook of Smart

Technology for Aging, Disability and Independence, Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience, 2008.

U.S. Department of Justice, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in

Commercial Facilities; Final Rule,” Federal Register, 56(144): 35544–35961, 1991.

6.8 RESOURCES

Universal Design Newsletter. published quarterly by Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc., Takoma Park,

Md.; www.UniversalDesign.com

Universal Design Online, www.UniversalDesign.com