Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T04:03:59.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economic Explanation of Inclusive Design in Different Stages of Product Life Time

Part of: Innovation Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Fang Li  and
Hua Dong
Fang Li
Affiliation:
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University Institute of International Exchange, Shanghai Open University
Hua Dong
Affiliation:
College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The static data obtained from user research are not sufficient to accurately reflect the change of the user's needs and capabilities in different contexts. Not paying enough attention to the economic feasibility of design solutions makes inclusive design face challenges in commercialization. In this paper, the user's demand is regarded as a function of the dynamic interaction between the user's characteristics and the environment. The inclusion problem is defined from an economic perspective. By distinguishing the stages before and after the delivery of a product, different economic properties of the product are defined. Then the two stages are analysed from the perspective of investment and consumption respectively, and the competition criterion of inclusivity distribution and the reasons for exclusion are deduced. According to the causes of different problems in the two stages, the research direction of inclusive solutions is pointed out, and the economical sustainability of inclusive design is analysed. This paper emphasizes that the goal of inclusive design lies not only in the partial and temporary elimination of exclusion, but also in how to distribute the freedom of choice.

Keywords

Inclusive designDesign theoryDesign methodologyUser centred designDesign economics
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2377 - 2386
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Bianchin, M. and Heylighen, A. (2018), “Just design”, Design Studies, Vol. 54, pp. 1–22, available: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.001.Google Scholar
Bianchin, M. and Heylighen, A. (2017), “Fair by design. Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches”, Design Journal, Vol. 20, pp. S3162–S3170, available: http://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution (2005), New British Standard addresses the need for inclusive design, available: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/media-centre/press-releases/2005/2/New-British-Standard-addresses-the-need-for-inclusive-design/ [accessed 2018-05-05].Google Scholar
Cheung, N.C. (2014), Economic Explanation, CITIC Publishing Group Co., Ltd, Beijing.Google Scholar
Clarkson, P.J. and Keates, S. (2002), “Quantifying design exclusion”, In: Keates, S., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J., Robinson, P. (eds) Universal Access and Assistive Technology, Springer, London, pp. 23–32, available: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3719-1_3Google Scholar
Crilly, N., Maier, A. and Clarkson, P.J. (2008), “Representing Artefacts as Media: Modelling the Relationship Between Designer Intent and Consumer Experience”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 2 No. 3.Google Scholar
Frauenberger, C., Good, J. and Keay-Bright, W. (2011), “Designing technology for children with special needs: bridging perspectives through participatory design”, Codesign-International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1–28, available: http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.587013.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D.R., Lockyer, S., Cook, S. and Quigley, C. (2001), “Third age usability and safety - an ergonomics contribution to design”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vo. 55 No. 4, pp. 635–643, available: http://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0484.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263–291.Google Scholar
Marshall, R., Cook, S., Mitchell, V., Summerskill, S., Haines, V., Maguire, M., Sims, R., Gyi, D. and Case, K. (2015), “Design and evaluation: End users, user datasets and personas”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 46, Part B, pp. 311–317, available: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.008.Google Scholar
Marshall, R., Cook, S., Mitchell, V., Summerskill, S., Haines, V., Maguire, M., Sims, R., Gyi, D. and Case, K. (2015), “Design and evaluation: End users, user datasets and personas”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 46, Part B, pp. 311–317, available: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.008.Google Scholar
Mises, L. V. (2015), Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, translated by Xia, D.P., Shanghai Social Sciences Press, Shanghai.Google Scholar
Munthe-Kaas, P. (2015), “Agonism and co-design of urban spaces”, Urban Research and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 218–237, available: http://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1050207.Google Scholar
Neumann, J.V. and Morgenstern, O. (1944), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. and Nordhaus, W.D. (2012), Microeconomics, Nineteenth Edition ed., translated by Xiao, C., Beijing, Posts and Telecom Press.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, E. and Tauke, B. (2002), “Universal Designing” in Christophersen, J., ed., Universal Design: 17 Ways of Thinking and Teaching, Husbanken, Norway, pp. 165–189.Google Scholar
Strickfaden, M. and Devlieger, P. (2011), “Empathy through Accumulating Techne: Designing an Accessible Metro”, Design Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 207–229, available: http://doi.org/10.2752/175630611x12984592780041.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. (2008), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice”, Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 15–25, available: http://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1070.0330.Google Scholar
Wijk, M. (2002), “If Anything, Call It Ergonomics – in Search for a Word in a World Called Science” in Christophersen, J., ed., Universal Design: 17 Ways of Thinking and Teaching, Husbanken, Norway, pp. 81–104.Google Scholar
Winance, M. (2014), “Universal design and the challenge of diversity: reflections on the principles of UD, based on empirical research of people's mobility”, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 36 No. 16, pp. 1334–1343, available: http://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.936564.Google Scholar
Wu, K.-C. and Song, L.-Y. (2017), “A case for inclusive design: Analyzing the needs of those who frequent Taiwan's urban parks”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 58, pp. 254–264, available: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.015.Google Scholar