The Bridge Connecting Theory to Practice - A Case Study of Universal Design Process

  • Yilin Elaine LiuEmail author
  • Seunghyun (Tina) Lee
  • Ljilja Ruzic Kascak
  • Jon A. Sanford
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9175)


In a typical design process, the decision making process by which desirable and predictive outcomes are achieved is clearly defined by problem definition, goals and objectives setting, design criteria development, design solution generation and evaluation of the solutions. In contrast, the current literature on Universal Design typically jumps from Universal Design as an ideal and set of principles to Universal Design as an artifact. Without interpreting Universal Design principles into specific design criteria, it is not possible to understand design intent, reliably evaluate design outcomes, replicate design processes or outcomes, or generalize findings to other products and environments. In this paper, an universal design process has been proposed and illustrated in a case study of a universally designed voting system in which Universal Design has been applied throughout the design process in a consistent and explicit way to produce a desirable Universal Design outcome.


Universal design Design process User interface 


  1. 1.
    Iwarsson, S., Ståhl, A.: Accessibility, usability and universal design-positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil. Rehabil. 25(2), 57–66 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Portillo, M., Dohr, J.H.: Bridging process and structure through criteria. Des. Stud. 15(4), 403–416 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fuchs, C., Obrist, M.: HCI and society: towards a typology of universal design principles. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 26(6), 638–656 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abascal, J.: Human-computer interaction in assistive technology: from patchwork to universal design. In: 2002 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 3, p. 6. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newell, A.F., Gregor, P.: User sensitive inclusive design—in search of a new paradigm. In: Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability, pp. 39–44. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mace, R.: What is universal design. The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University (1997). Accessed 19 Nov 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stephanidis, C., Akoumianakis, D., Sfyrakis, M., Paramythis, A.: Universal accessibility in HCI: process-oriented design guidelines and tool requirements. In: Proceedings of the 4th ERCIM Workshop on User Interfaces for all, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 19–21 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodwin, N.C.: Functionality and usability. Commun. ACM 30(3), 229–233 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pattison, M., Stedmon, A.W.: Inclusive design and human factors: designing mobile phones for older users. Psychol. J. 4(3), 267–284 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, H.-J., Heo, J., Shim, J., Kim, M.-Y., Park, S., Park, S.-H.: Contextual research on elderly users’ needs for developing universal design mobile phone. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 950–959. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, R., Kent, S.: Designing universal access: web-applications for the elderly and disabled. Cogn. Technol. Work 9(4), 209–218 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beecher, V., Paquet, V.: Survey instrument for the universal design of consumer products. Appl. Ergon. 36(3), 363–372 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canada, Canadian Human Rights Commission Staff, and Betty Dion Enterprises Staff. International best practices in universal design: a global review. Betty Dion Enterprises Ltd. (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Afacan, Y., Erbug, C.: An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design. Appl. Ergon. 40(4), 731–744 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanford, J.A.: Universal Design as a Rehabilitation Strategy: Design for the Ages. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, S.T., Liu, Y.E., Xiong, X., Sanford, J.: Development of a more universal voting interface. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 57(1), 1624–1628 (2013). SAGE PublicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yilin Elaine Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seunghyun (Tina) Lee
    • 1
  • Ljilja Ruzic Kascak
    • 1
  • Jon A. Sanford
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA)Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations