Comparing Product Assessment Methods for Inclusive Design

  • C. Cardoso
  • S. Keates
  • P. J. Clarkson


New emerging technologies and increasingly competitive design markets are strategically planned to satisfy ’mainstream’ consumer needs. However, two population trends seem to have been ignored by this mainstream market perception: first, the economic power of the growing older adult consumer population in most developed countries; and, second, the increasing awareness and legislation about the rights of the disabled community (Coleman, 2001). Both groups are continually disadvantaged or even excluded from using many everyday design solutions, which impose functional capability demands beyond their acceptable limits (Keates et al., 2000). As these ’non-mainstream’ consumers become aware of their economic and legislative influence, there is clearly a need and opportunity to develop more inclusive design solutions (Yelding, 2003). The scarcity of commercially successful inclusive design solutions suggests that these users’ wants and needs have not been properly included during the design process. Designers are either not familiar with these population trends or lack the methods to address this problem in real-life circumstances.


Coping Strategy Population Trend Problem User Physical Simulator Industrial Designer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Coleman R (2001) Designing for our future selves. Universal Design Handbook, MacGraw- Hill, New York, pp 4.1–4.25Google Scholar
  2. Dong H, Cardoso C, Cassim J, Keates S, Clarkson PJ (2002) Inclusive design: Reflections on design practice. University of Cambridge, CUED/C-EDC/TR 118Google Scholar
  3. Drury CG (1990) Methods for direct observation of human of performance. In: Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor and Francis, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Jordan P et al (2000) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor and Francis, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Keates S, Clarkson PJ, Harrison LJ, Robinson P (2000) Towards a practical inclusive design approach. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, VA, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  6. Martin J, Meltzer H, Elliot D (1988) The prevalence of disability among adults. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey Division, HMSOGoogle Scholar
  7. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, CAMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Stanton N, Young M (1999) A guide to methodology in ergonomics: Designing for human use. Taylor and Francis, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Steinfeld A, Steinfeld E (2001) Universal design in automobile design. In: Universal Design Handbook, MacGraw-Hill, New York, pp 50.1–50.13Google Scholar
  10. Yelding D (2003) Power to the people. In: Inclusive Design: Designing for the whole population, Springer-Verlag, London, pp 104–117Google Scholar
  11. Wilson J, Corlett N (1995) Evaluation of human work, 2nd edition. Taylor and Francis, London, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Cardoso
  • S. Keates
  • P. J. Clarkson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations