Concept of Universal Design (UD) is widely known as the seven principles defined by NC ... These activities are well explained referring to Norman's well-known.
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
Universal Design Models of Development Lifecycle Process Hiroyuki Miki1, Hiroko Akatsu1, Naotsune Hosono2 1 HI Lab., OKI Electric Ind. Co., Ltd., 1-16-8 Chuou, Warabi-shi, Saitama 335-8510, Japan 2 Oki Consulting Solutions Co., Ltd., 4-11-15 Shibaura, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0023, Japan.
ABSTRACT Concept of Universal Design (UD) is widely known as the seven principles defined by NC State University. However, explanatory models on UD have not been well elaborated to date. As a result, it is not easy for ordinary designers to figure out what to do as UD and how UD is different from conventional designs. This paper addresses this issue and proposes three UD models -- Dual Triangle model, Logic Simulation model and UD development model -- for the development lifecycle: Strategy, Planning and Design phases. In the Strategy Phase, not only product aspect but also process aspect and people aspect should be considered by the manufacturer to conduct manufacturer wide UD efforts. In addition, each aspect in a manufacturer should be connected to situations of each aspect of our society. Thus Dual Triangle model consisting of two layers (manufacturer and society) of product, process and people aspects is proposed and discussed. In the Planning Phase, UD promoters need to simulate both the users’ activities and the designers’ design logics and product logics (implementation logics), communicate with various affiliates, and plan a UD approach. These activities are well explained referring to Norman’s well-known Conceptual Models consisting of the design model, system image and user’s model. A Logic Simulation model based on the Conceptual Models is proposed and discussed. In the Design Phase, designers need to iterate with the Human-Centered Design process defined by ISO 13407 to resolve conflicts of many trade-off factors. Analysing and reflecting “context-of-use” based on results of field observation, user hearing, and so on are central in this activity. An UD development model is proposed and discussed. The proposed three models cover wide aspects of UD and concisely clarify important points in them for better understandings of UD efforts. KEYWORDS Development Lifecycle Process, Dual Triangle model, Logic Simulation model, UD development model INTRODUCTION In Japan, many manufacturers and companies are now considering Universal Design (UD) because of the changing demographic makeup due to low birth rate and aging society (Miki, Hosono, 2005). Designers often face many issues when they try to realize UD. For instance, they may ask the requirements of disabled users in order to implement them into their next product. However, they will be confounded trying to find a single solution that covers all the requirements. Even if a solution is
189
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
found, they may face the return of investment (ROI) issue and be thrown back again into the difficult task of finding a viable solution. UD should originally have been the basic concept behind manufacturing, but lack of recognition until now has created a large gap between the ideal and reality. Hence, many of the responsibilities will fall on the UD designers. As a result, designers will request from the UD promoters only a list of minimum UD requirements and asking them to settle for simple, offhand solutions to avoid developmental delays. In response, the UD promoters will emphasize the need to implement more than the minimum requirements by pointing out the difficulties of overcoming conflicts that arise from various user demands. Convincing the designers is a hard task. Currently there are very few examples or methods to explain the differences between conventional and UD design processes. Many times the designers think that UD design process will be the same as conventional ones, or they give up because they believe numerous UD knowledge and experiences are necessary. In order to solve such issues, there is an UD explanatory model that clarifies the differences between UD and conventional designs. The seven UD principles (Story, 2001) are often referenced. Unfortunately, the principles tend to focus just on the general characteristics of UD products. The design process, training or conflict issues are not mentioned. However, there are many researches and efforts that propose models to complement areas where the principles do not cover (Norman, 1988). This research is also such an approach. It is not meant to replace the seven UD principles but to complement them. On the following pages, three models are proposed along a development lifecycle (ISO, 2003) of a product. First, the Dual Triangle model is discussed for the Strategy phase, followed by the Logic Simulation model for the planning phase, and finally the UD development model for the Design phase. After each discussion of the models, the model usage will be simply explained. 1. STRATEGY PHASE: DUAL TRIANGLE MODEL In the Strategy Phase, a UD promoter can draw up UD strategy with a planning section taking corporate vision and business domain strategy into account. The UD promoter needs to set an overall policy for UD and determine long-term and medium-term UD objectives. UD is an ambitious target and is not achieved easily. Long-term “stability” in continuing UD efforts is important for such a UD strategy. In order to achieve “stability”, the UD promoter must understand various approaches to realize UD and manage the mutual relations among them. The Dual Triangle model in the center of Figure 1 can provide extended scope. This model explains what a product manufacturer should consider when conducting corporate activities that contribute to the “Quality of Life” of their consumers. In short, this model can provide three different activities: “Product”, “Process”, and “People” for the manufacturer with consideration of the product users. Manufacturers tend just to clear the minimum UD standard, but this is not enough to create a good and stable UD design product, and achieve good relationships with the users. In the sections below, the manufacturer layer and the society layer are explained respectively followed by explanations of the relationships between the two layers. Manufacturer layer Quality of Life (QOL) is fundamental to UD and consists of three segments: Products, Development Process and People or employees (Miki et al., 2005, 2006b). For a “Product” to meet user needs, it is 190
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
Consultation
Corporate standards
Product 製品
Quality of Life Corporate internal training 設計プロセス Process
Web system: - Disclosed technical documents - News group for each project Dedicated WG
組織・人 People
Manufacture Layer Society Layer
Corporate disabled community Corporate-wide Ergonomics Committee
Fig. 1 DUAL TRIANGLE MODEL (In the center circle, Dual Triangle model is drawn. Outside the circle, activities at OKI Electric are described as examples.)
necessary to identify user profiles, such as general user, elderly, disabled, foreigner, etc. Universal design products must comply with the minimum barriers for those users. Further, a design must be readily achievable and not constitute an undue burden on the manufacturers. Previously, the “Process” tended to be seed oriented. However, the emphasis must now be shifted to needs oriented for HumanCentered Design concepts. The Process requires discussion and standardisation, ISO13407 (ISO, 1999). Employees and the organization represent the “People”. Activities for “People” include training courses, branding activities, committee activities, cooperation with disabled people, and so forth. As examples of activities for “Product”, “Process”, and “People”, activities at OKI Electric, which are shown outside the center circle in Figure 1, are described from this point forward. ”Ergonomics Committee” is a corporate-wide technical standardization committee, and promotes the implementation of international standards into Oki Electric’s “Corporate standards”, while providing the function of a steering committee to promote UD efforts throughout the company. This committee has been engaged in discussions on this topic and has organized “Dedicated work groups” (for example the US Accessibility Law Compliance WG was established around 2001) to conduct intensive work when necessary. The “Ergonomics Committee” is made up of members from each internal company and UD experts. The committee members from individual internal companies act as UD contacts of “Consultation” in their respective organizations and also fill the role for providing instructions and promotions. The Human Interface Laboratory (abbreviated as “HI Lab”) is a research and development organization that is responsible for developing new UD designs and evaluation methods, conducting research and development of new UD technologies as well as providing “Corporate internal training”. Oki Alpha Create is an organization responsible for implementing designs and realizing the UD for hardware and software. When planning a product, for which UD should be considered, the relevant internal companies will usually contact either or both the HI Laboratory and Oki Alpha Create through the Ergonomics Committee to ask for a short-term response or a full-scale response requiring cooperative participation by both. There may be circumstances when only Oki Alpha Create will respond. In any event, when it 191
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
is decided that a response should be made, an effective response using an information sharing web site (“Web system”) will be provided. When a product review or monitor testing (“usability testing”) of products is conducted, “Corporate disabled community” contributes to the activity. It is believed that such a framework has contributed to the positive evaluation of this organization in a reference document (Shimokawa et al., 2004). Society layer In the section above, Quality of Life was explained from the designers’ standpoint. On the contrary it is necessary to observe the users’ standpoint (“Society Layer” in Figure 1). There are three segments in the “Society Layer” as well. ・ Product: The product may be used as a single machine or sometimes used in combination with other machines. In the latter case, the relationships between the multiple products will affect the users’ “Quality of Life”. They are also important information for the product design. ・ Process: Users’ process including operational procedures can provide important design information. It is also useful to consider the relationships between “Product” and “People” at the product development stage. ・ People: Pursuing good relationships with the product manufacturers can get the users necessary information before the purchase, or essential support afterwards. They can also form a user community with users of the same product. Connecting manufacturer layer and society layer In Figure 1, “Manufacture layer” can be context of design, whereas ”Society layer” can be context of use (ISO, 1998). Thanks to the IT revolution brought by the Internet, many barriers between corporations, users and machines have been pulled down, and Figure 1 can be applied to measure the relationships between contexts of design and use. Although designers who develop products are not directly in charge of the efforts in the Strategy Phase, Figure 1 is general enough to be used in other phases as well. Hence, they need to be familiar with it for better UD efforts. 2. PLANNING PHASE: LOGIC SIMULATION MODEL BASED ON CONCEPTUAL MODELS In the Planning phase, 3C analysis, which consists of Corporate, Competitors and Customers analyses, is performed. Based on this 3C analysis, detailed product targets (concept, quality, cost issues and shipment date) and business plan (sales and profit targets) are formulated. Through this task process, the context-of-use must be clarified. During this, user groups such as standard users, blind users and wheel-chaired users are defined as focus groups. Then their requirements are detailed considering the implementation. For instance, in case of the Auto Teller Machine (ATM) used by wheel-chaired users, the height and shapes of the screen and the various slots for bank card, account book, cash and coins must be made slightly different than those of standard users. Paper mock-ups are then usually prepared in order to determine whether a single product can cover all the requirements. It is necessary to have enough time for discussions between planning and technical sections and find implementation limits during the detailed requirements phase. It is forbidden to introduce too many sectional requirements such as limitation of the current machine, choosing extreme cost cutting over user merits or adopting excessively advanced technologies. In such a situation, a balanced approach is
192
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
Design Logic
Presumed Operational Logic
Designer
User Operational Logic
Product Functional Logic Fig. 2 LOGIC SIMULATION MODEL BASED ON CONCEPTUAL MODELS
required to make rational decisions, and in a step-by-step method the minimum requirements are first clarified before proceeding to the next. Models or matrix are conventionally used to realize the balanced approach. This paper proposes a model that emphasizes the standpoints of different occupations (Figure 2). Figure 2 shows the newly proposed model based on Norman’s well-known Conceptual Models in the Cognitive Engineering area to explain the relationships between the designers and users of the product. In this model, three logics must be considered; Design Logic, which the designer assumes is the usage (in top right dotted circle), Functional Logic, which is contained in the product, and Operational Logic, which the users presume over the target product. The designer assumes Operational Logic of the users from the results of user hearing (top center dotted circle in Figure 2). Then he will create the Design Logic in order to develop the product. Next he will design the Functional Logic taking into consideration many conditions based on the Design Logic. Users must gradually understand the Operational Logic through the usage of the particular product. In this model, when the Functional Logic contained in the product is close to the Operational Logic imagined by the users, then the users will easily predict the usage and feel easy using the product. For this to happen, the Functional Logic must be consistent and clear against the Design Logic. Hence the Operational Logic based on the Design Logic must be again close to the actual Operational Logic. This means the three peaks of the triangle in Figure 2 must be consistent with each other. If the three peaks of the triangle in Figure 2 are consistent for an easy to use product, it can be analysed to determine the Functional Logic, Design Logic, and Operational Logic through reverse engineering with only fundamental UD knowledge and experiences. Then it is possible to create easy to use and qualified new products based on the analysis. Some recent compact and low cost products are hard to use even though their original products were quite well designed. This is because when the original products were developed, no history records of the three logics were kept. Worst of all, at the developing stage of the new products, the designers failed to do the reverse engineering. Summarizing the above, to actualize the UD concept, competency to simulate the three logics is required. The question is then who will be able to do this? The designers are normally busy making compromises between the Design Logic and Functional Logic. This can be explained without the users portion of top right in Figure 2. How about usability engineers? They are experienced in 193
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
Accessibility Functionality
Usability Branding
Security, Safety Cost
Software
Technology
Hardware
Context of use （User，Task，Equipment，Environment）
Evaluation
Human Centred Design
Research
Design Fig. 3 UD development model (Miki et al., 2006a)
usability testing or requirement acquisition, but they are rarely familiar with Design Logic or Functional Logic. Eventually, it is the UD promoter with designer background (development engineer) who must understand all the conditions of the user, design and implementation, and find a compromising point. If this is beyond the UD promoter’s capability, he must keep up the effort to share the three logics with the designers. The designers may shy away from pursuing UD design since user requirements tend to be many and conflict with each other, and the final design turns out much more complicated. Even with such difficulties, it is necessary to pursue the higher level of design through positive thinking. 3. DESIGN PHASE: UD DEVELOPMENT MODEL In the design phase, detailed specifications of a product are clarified through elaboration of the product planning documents created in the Planning Phase. Before the final specifications are fixed, proto-types are built and refined repeatedly taking into consideration results of the monitor testing (usability testing) conducted after each refinement. Based on the final specifications, commercial products will be manufactured. Importance of iterative design approaches has been emphasized so far. Among these, the HumanCentered Design approach (ISO, 1999) can be applied to Universal Design, because it also emphasizes requirement acquisition. However, it is too general to cover all the design points with repetitive design approach for UD. Care must be taken since designers sometime pay too much attention on UD looking into minute details when referring to UD guidelines and standards. The proposed model in Figure 3 is a simplified model that represents the UD points at the design phase. It includes the following points: 194
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
・ It is necessary to resolve the many conflicts that arise between the requirements of different users and various design factors. ・ At the time of conflict resolutions, it is important to consider the context of use. Design evaluations and reviews are repeated to match the context of use. ・ Appropriate hardware and software must be selected before high-level conflict resolutions. ・ Repetitive approach may only make superficial corrections. Drastic measures through effective research will also be necessary. One example is provided for the last point. Providing too many explanations can be overwhelming for elderly users who are not good at complicated operations. They grow tired of reading all the sentences and gradually give up. In such a case, it is better to find another solution that uses fewer sentences (Miki, Hosono, 2005). Repetitive approach with just superficial portions often brings a lack of consistency over the system. The model in Figure 3 simply introduces UD design features for designers. In an actual design phase, the activities of each user group are simulated in detail using a matrix (Yamaoka, 2002). Even though Figure 3 is a conceptual model, it is one of the effective methods for designers to understand UD, since it is based on and applied with Human-Centered Design and usability. 4. CONCLUSION This paper proposed three UD models -- Dual Triangle model, Logic Simulation model and UD development model -- for the development lifecycle: Strategy, Planning and Design phases. Currently there are very few examples or methods to explain the differences between conventional and UD design processes. Many times the designers think that UD design process will be the same as conventional ones, or they give up because they believe numerous UD knowledge and experiences are necessary. While the proposed three models are conceptual, they can be helpful for designers to understand Universal Design. In this paper each of the three models was explained referring to a specific lifecycle phase. However, it can be useful in other lifecycle phases as well. REFERENCES ISO 2003. ISO/PAS 18152: Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Specification for the process assessment of human-system issues, ISO. ISO 1998. ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability, ISO. ISO 1999. ISO 13407: Human-centered design processes of interactive systems, ISO. Miki, H., Akatsu, H., Suzuki, K., Hosono, N. 2006a. Designing ATM based on Universal Design Concept (in Japanese), Special issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, Vol.13, No.4, pp48-55. Miki, H., Hosono, N., Takeuchi, K., Tsuda, T. 2006b. Universal Design in practice at Oki Electric, In “Proc. of IEA 2006”, IEA. Miki, H., Hosono, N. 2005. IT Universal Design (in Japanese), Maruzen, Tokyo. 195
Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006
Norman, D.A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things, Basic Books. Shimokawa, K., Ota, K., Uehara, T. 2004. Progression of UD activities in Japan (in Japanese), Nikkei Design, July issue, pp40-73. Story, M.F. 2001. Principles of Universal Design, In Preiser, W.F.E. (Ed.), Universal Design Handbook, McGraw-Hill, pp10.3-10.19. Yamaoka, T. et al. 2002. A proposal for UD practical guideline (1): Framework for UD practical guidelines, In “Proc. of Int. Conf. for Universal Design”, IAUD.
196
