Design for All Users

  • Jon A. Sanford


Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. Whereas this strategy is typically applied to broadly enhance usability of design—including its safety, accessibility, and simplicity—universal design can also be applied in a more focused manner to facilitate specific aspects of usability, such as wayfinding. In this chapter, the author describes not only what universal design is, but also what it is not: specialized designs to compensate for functional limitations. The chapter makes the case that specialized design, as embodied by the technical specifications in the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines, defines a rigid set of prescriptive rules of what to do to promote safety and accessibility for specific individuals; universal design, as articulated by a set of performance guidelines embodied in the principles of universal design, describes how to promote usability and inclusivity—including community wayfinding—for everyone. Despite its potential, universal design has not been widely adopted as a strategy in promoting community wayfinding. The chapter addresses directions in research, policy, and practice necessary to promote universal design implementation.


Functional Limitation Specialized Design Universal Design Mobility Information Mobility Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Belser, S. H., & Weber, J. A. (1995). Home builders’ attitudes and knowledge of aging: The relationship to design for independent living. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 11(2), 123–137. doi: 10.1300/J081V11N02_08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Connell, B. R., & Sanford, J. A. (2001). Difficulty, dependence, and housing accessibility for people aging with a disability. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 18(3), 234–242.Google Scholar
  3. Connell, B. R., Sanford, J. A., Long, R. G., Archea, C., & Turner, C. (1993). Home modifications and performance of routine household activities by individuals with varying levels of mobility impairment. Technology and Disability, 2(4), 9–18.Google Scholar
  4. Connell, B. R., Jones, M. L., Mace, R., Meuller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J. A., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The principles of universal design: Version 2.0. Raleigh: The Center for Universal Design.Google Scholar
  5. Gitlin, L. N., Corcoran, M., Winter, L., Boyce, A., & Hauck, W. W. (2001). A randomized, controlled trial of home environmental intervention effect on efficacy and upset in caregivers and on daily function of persons with dementia. The Gerontologist, 41(1), 4–14. doi: 10.1093/geront/41.1.4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gitlin, L. N., Winter, L., Dennis, M. P., Corcoran, M., Schinfeld, S., & Hauck, W. W. (2006). A randomized trial of a multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional difficulties in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54(5), 809–816. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00703.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Imrie, R. (2004). From universal to inclusive design in the built environment. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barriers – Enabling environments (pp. 279–284). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Mace, R., Hardie, G., & Place, J. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In E. T. White (Ed.), Innovation by design (pp. 155–175). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Sanford, J. A. (2012). Design for the ages: Universal design as a rehabilitation strategy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Sanford, J. A., & Bruce, C. (2010). Measuring the impact of the physical environment. In T. Oakland & E. Mpofu (Eds.), Rehabilitation and health assessment (pp. 207–228). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Sanford, J. A., Griffiths, P. M., Richardson, P., Hargraves, K., Butterfield, T., & Hoenig, H. (2006). The effects of in-home rehabilitation on task self efficacy in mobility impaired adults: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 54(11), 1641–1648. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00913.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schulz, R., O’Brien, A., Czaja, S., Ory, M., Norris, R., Martire, L. M., Belle, S. H., et al. (2002). Dementia caregiver intervention research in search of clinical significance. The Gerontologist, 42(5), 589–602. doi: 10.1093/geront/42.5.589.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Stark, S., Sanford, J. A., & Keglovits, M. (2014). Environmental performance enablers and their impact on occupational performance. In C. Christianson, C. Baum, & J. D. Bass (Eds.), Occupational therapy, performance, participation and well-being (4th ed., pp. 387–420). Thorofare: Slack Incorporated.Google Scholar
  14. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental AccessSchool of Industrial Design, Georgia TechAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations