{"rowid": 299, "title": "What the Heck Is Inclusive Design?", "contents": "Naming things is hard. And I don\u2019t just mean CSS class names and JSON properties. Finding the right term for what we do with the time we spend awake and out of bed turns out to be really hard too.\nI\u2019ve variously gone by \u201cfront-end developer\u201d, \u201cuser experience designer\u201d, and \u201caccessibility engineer\u201d, all clumsy and incomplete terms for labeling what I do as an\u2026 erm\u2026 see, there\u2019s the problem again.\nIt\u2019s tempting to give up entirely on trying to find the right words for things, but this risks summarily dispensing with thousands of years spent trying to qualify the world around us. So here we are again.\nRecently, I\u2019ve been using the term \u201cinclusive design\u201d and calling myself an \u201cinclusive designer\u201d a lot. I\u2019m not sure where I first heard it or who came up with it, but the terminology feels like a good fit for the kind of stuff I care to do when I\u2019m not at a pub or asleep.\nThis article is about what I think \u201cinclusive design\u201d means and why I think you might like it as an idea.\nIsn\u2019t \u2018inclusive design\u2019 just \u2018accessibility\u2019 by another name?\nNo, I don\u2019t think so. But that\u2019s not to say the two concepts aren\u2019t related. Note the \u2018design\u2019 part in \u2018inclusive design\u2019 \u2014 that\u2019s not just there by accident. Inclusive design describes a design activity; a way of designing things.\nThis sets it apart from accessibility \u2014 or at least our expectations of what \u2018accessibility\u2019 entails. Despite every single accessibility expert I know (and I know a lot) recommending that accessibility should be integrated into design process, it is rarely ever done. Instead, it is relegated to an afterthought, limiting its effect.\nThe term \u2018accessibility\u2019 therefore lacks the power to connote design process. It\u2019s not that we haven\u2019t tried to salvage the term, but it\u2019s beginning to look like a lost cause. So maybe let\u2019s use a new term, because new things take new names. People get that.\nThe \u2018access\u2019 part of accessibility is also problematic. Before we get ahead of ourselves, I don\u2019t mean access is a problem \u2014 access is good, and the more accessible something is  the better. I mean it\u2019s not enough by itself.\nImagine a website filled with poorly written and lackadaisically organized information, including a bunch of convoluted and confusing functionality. To make this site accessible is to ensure no barriers prevent people from accessing the content. \nBut that doesn\u2019t make the content any better. It just means more people get to suffer it. \nWhoopdidoo.\nAccess is certainly a prerequisite of inclusion, but accessibility compliance doesn\u2019t get you all the way there. It\u2019s possible to check all the boxes but still be left with an unusable  interface. And unusable interfaces are necessarily inaccessible ones. Sure, you can take an unusable interface and make it accessibility compliant, but that only placates stakeholders\u2019 lawyers, not users. Users get little value from it.\nSo where have we got to? Access is important, but inclusion is bigger than access. Inclusive design means making something valuable, not just accessible, to as many people as we can.\nSo inclusive design is kind of accessibility + UX?\nCloser, but there are some problems with this definition.\nUX is, you will have already noted, a broad term encompassing activities ranging from conducting research studies to optimizing the perceived affordance of interface elements. But overall, what I take from UX is that it\u2019s the pursuit of making interfaces  understandable.\nAs it happens, WCAG 2.0 already contains an \u2018Understandable\u2019 principle covering provisions such as readability, predictability and feedback. So you might say accessibility \u2014 at least as described by WCAG \u2014 already covers UX.\nUnfortunately, the criteria are limited, plus some really important stuff (like readability) is relegated to the AAA level; essentially \u201cbonus points if you get the time (you won\u2019t).\u201d\nSo better to let UX folks take care of this kind of thing. It\u2019s what they do. Except, therein lies a danger. UX professionals don\u2019t tend to be well versed in accessibility, so their \u2018solutions\u2019 don\u2019t tend to work for that many people. My friend Billy Gregory coined the term SUX, or \u201cSome UX\u201d: if it doesn\u2019t work for different users, it\u2019s only doing part of the job it should be. \nSUX won\u2019t do, but it\u2019s not just a disability issue. All sorts of user circumstances go unchecked when you\u2019re shooting straight for what people like, and bypassing what people need: device type, device settings, network quality, location, native language, and available time to name just a few.\nIn short, inclusive design means designing things for people who aren\u2019t you, in your situation. In my experience, mainstream UX isn\u2019t very good at that. By bolting accessibility onto mainstream UX we labor under the misapprehension that most people have a \u2018normal\u2019 experience, a few people are exceptions, and that all of the exceptions pertain to disability directly.\nSo inclusive design isn\u2019t really about disability?\nIt is about disability, but not in the same way as accessibility. Accessibility (as it is typically understood, anyway) aims to make sure things work for people with clinically recognized disabilities. Inclusive design aims to make sure things work for people, not forgetting those with clinically recognized disabilities. A subtle, but not so subtle, difference.\nLet\u2019s go back to discussing readability, because that\u2019s a good example. Now: everyone benefits from readable text; text with concise sentences and widely-understood words. It certainly helps people with cognitive impairments, but it doesn\u2019t hinder folks who have less trouble with comprehension. In fact, they\u2019ll more than likely be thankful for the time saved and the clarity. Readable text covers the whole gamut. It\u2019s \u2014 you\u2019ve got it \u2014 inclusive.\nLegibility is another one. A clear, well-balanced typeface makes the reading experience less uncomfortable and frustrating for all concerned, including those who have various forms of visual dyslexia. Again, everyone\u2019s happy \u2014 so why even contemplate a squiggly, sketchy typeface? Leave well alone.\nContrast too. No one benefits from low contrast; everyone benefits from high contrast. Simple. There\u2019s no more work involved, it just entails better decision making. And that\u2019s what design is really: decision making.\nHow about zoom support? If you let your users pinch zoom on their phones they can compensate for poor eyesight, but they can also increase the touch area of controls, inspect detail in images, and compose better screen shots. Unobtrusively supporting options like zoom makes interfaces much more inclusive at very little cost.\nAnd when it comes to the underlying HTML code, you\u2019re in luck: it has already been designed, from the outset, to be inclusive. HTML is a toolkit for inclusion. Using the right elements for the job doesn\u2019t just mean the few who use screen readers benefit, but keyboard accessibility comes out-of-the-box, you can defer to browser behavior rather than writing additional scripts, the code is easier to read and maintain, and editors can create content that is effortlessly presentable. \nWait\u2026 are you talking about universal design?\nHmmm. Yes, I guess some folks might think of \u201cuniversal design\u201d and \u201cinclusive design\u201d as synonymous. I just really don\u2019t like the term universal in this context. \nThe thing is, it gives the impression that you should be designing for absolutely everyone in the universe. Though few would adopt a literal interpretation of \u201cuniversal\u201d in this context, there are enough developers who would deliberately misconstrue the term and decry universal design as an impossible task. I\u2019ve actually had people push back by saying, \u201cwhat, so I\u2019ve got to make it work for people who are allergic to computers? What about people in comas?\u201d\nFor everyone\u2019s sake, I think the term \u2018inclusive\u2019 is less misleading. Of course you can\u2019t make things that everybody can use \u2014 it\u2019s okay, that\u2019s not the aim. But with everything that\u2019s possible with web technologies, there\u2019s really no need to exclude people in the vast numbers that we usually are. \nAccessibility can never be perfect, but by thinking inclusively from planning, through prototyping to production, you can cast a much wider net. That means more and happier users at very little if any more effort.\nIf you like, inclusive design is the means and accessibility is the end \u2014 it\u2019s just that you get a lot more than just accessibility along the way.\nConclusion\nThat\u2019s inclusive design. Or at least, that\u2019s a definition for a thing I think is a good idea which I identify as inclusive design. I\u2019ll leave you with a few tips.\nInvolve code early\nWeb interfaces are made of code. If you\u2019re not working with code, you\u2019re not working on the interface. That\u2019s not to say there\u2019s anything wrong with sketching or paper prototyping  \u2014 in fact, I recommend paper prototyping in my book on inclusive design. Just work with code as soon as you can, and think about code even before that. Maintain a pattern library of coded solutions and omit any solutions that don\u2019t adhere to basic accessibility guidelines.\nRespect conventions\nYour content should be fresh, inventive, radical. Your interface shouldn\u2019t. Adopt accepted conventions in the appearance, placement and coding of interface elements. Users aren\u2019t there to experience interface design; they\u2019re there to use an interface. In other words: stop showing off (unless, of course, the brief is to experiment with new paradigms in interface design, for an audience of interface design researchers).\nDon\u2019t be exact\n\u201cPerfection is the enemy of good\u201d. But the pursuit of perfection isn\u2019t just to be avoided because nothing ever gets finished. Exacting design also makes things inflexible and brittle. If your design depends on elements retaining precise coordinates, they\u2019ll break easily when your users start adjusting font settings or zooming. Choose not to position elements exactly or give them fixed, \u201cmagic number\u201d dimensions. Make less decisions in the interface so your users can make more decisions for it.\nEnforce simplicity\nThe virtue of simplicity is difficult to overestimate. The simpler an interface is, the easier it is to use for all kinds of users. Simpler interfaces require less code to make too, so there\u2019s an obvious performance advantage. There are many design decisions that require user research, but keeping things simple is always the right thing to do. Not simplified or simple-seeming or simplistic, but simple. \nDo a little and do it well, for as many people as you can.", "year": "2016", "author": "Heydon Pickering", "author_slug": "heydonpickering", "published": "2016-12-07T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2016/what-the-heck-is-inclusive-design/", "topic": "process"}