Design for Inclusion

6.6 Conclusions

We started this paper by asking about the definition of inclusive design and suggested an alternative formulation of design for inclusion. By prioritizing the social and personal concerns of older people, and presenting this information in a formalised template, we aim to provide a resource for understanding the complex layered and relational character of such problems. Using the net neighbours scheme as an example of a distributed socio-technical system that targets the concerns and capacities of different stakeholders, we gave an example of how such complex issues might be addressed through a user-centred mentality, and how future service based interventions may be developed.

Inclusive Design should do more than extend the reach of mainstream technology and the popularity of assistive devices, it should fulfill its political underpinnings and orient to the broader needs of the excluded of society. We have suggested the notion of design for inclusion as an alternative formulation of inclusive design, but of course we are not suggesting that the first replace the second.

A consequence of thinking about design for inclusion is that we start to think about high level issues such as social exclusion and formulate in reply high level responses. This removes the burden of having to make every device inclusive, and releases us from debates about specificality and universality. Instead our responses can be formulated above the single or even multiple device level and incorporate people as well as technologies. In a sense such high level approaches provide a solution for the integration of the specific and the universal through a form of User Centred Design, that understands individuals in a matrix of relationships whose consequences and outcomes are inclusive. In return a wealth of responses open up, including commercial and social services that combine and integrate technology and practice.