Universal Design in Work

Gourab Kar (), Graduate Researcher

Abir Mullick (), Professor

School of Industrial Design, College of Architecture,

Georgia Institute of Technology,

247 4th St. NW Atlanta,

GA., 30332-0155, USA

Purpose of Study:

By 2020, one-fifth of the US working population will comprise of older adults over the age of 55 years1. According to the provisions made under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 32.1 Million working age people in the US have a disability 2. Workplace injuries often result from poor design of workplaces; those who over-extend, injure themselves. Also, unemployment among elderly and those with disabilities often results from workplaces incompatible with their needs. To keep them employed it is important to design usable workplaces that provide safe working environment. Consequently, there is need for research on work challenges; and identify barriers to employment, so workplaces compatible to needs of older adults and people with disabilities can be designed.

Methodology:

This project examined behind-the-counter work challenges to understand work as an interaction of technology, environment and people, and develop new universal design solutions that meet needs ofolder adults and people with disabilities.People focused and environment oriented research were employed to learn about needs and preferences of behind-the-counter workers involved in secretarial, library check-out, hotel reception and airline check-in work.

Research identified commonalities and differences in work needs, work environments, body postures, technological needs and spatial requirements.Ethnographic studies and participatory research identified environmental and usability needs. Environmental research using observation and interviewshighlighted the role of the physical environment in behind-the-counter work. Environmental audit uncovered environmental factors that affect work performance. Usability research using trace studies, in-situ observation, contextual interviews and questionnaires outlinedhow people used workspace. Usability audits pointed the importance of environmental fit3between human capabilities and environmental design of workspace3.

Data from research studies was transcribed, sorted and catalogued to develop content, hierarchyand key issues. The multi-modal methodology helped examine problems from many different perspectives, identify user needs and preferences, develop guidelines to inform design and direct development of universally designed behind-the-counter workspaces.

Results:

Some key findings from the research are:

  1. Location of technologies and devices not in sync with workflow.
  2. Most work counters not wheelchair accessible.
  3. Storage zone locations beyond optimum reach envelope.
  4. Fixed height counters reduce flexibility in work posture and challenge users.
  5. Device clutter reduces the useable counter space.
  6. Mismatch between work technologies and environmental design challenges users and those unable to address are “handicapped” by the environment.
  7. Often seating lackscritical body support that pushes workers to adopt “bad” postures causing injuries.

Conclusion:

Combining observational research with user feedback through contextual interviews and questionnaires can generate useful research findings that inform the design process. This method can be very effective in learning about the needs and challenges of people. Synthesizing findings from environment and usability studies allowed for a comprehensive analysis of human-performance-environment conflicts and provided basis for developing guidelines for inclusively designed workspaces. The use of these methods enables accurately translating user needs into design criteria.These research methods can be applied in other contexts of seamless access for all, to identify conflicts in human-environment-technology interactions and design contextual solutions.

500 words

Code: J

References:

1. Mitra, T. 2002. A century of change: the U.S. labor force, 1950–2050,

Monthly Labor Review, May 2002.

2. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG, 2002)

3. Steinfeld, E., Danford, G.S., 1997. Measuring “Fit” between Individual and Environment, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Proceedings, Environmental Design, pp. 485-489(5)