This paper describes the University of Cambridge, Engineering Design Centre's (EDC) case for inclusive design, based on 10 years of research, promotion and knowledge transfer. In summary, inclusive design applies an understanding of customer diversity to inform decisions throughout the development process, in order to better satisfy the needs of more people. Products that are more inclusive can reach a wider market, improve customer satisfaction and drive business success. The rapidly ageing population increases the importance of this approach. The case presented here has helped to convince BT, Nestlé and others to adopt an inclusive approach.

This proposed e-diary with its intuitive interface has overcome previous deficiencies in electronic diaries with most patients finding the format user-friendly. Electronic reports make analysis and interpretation by HP quicker and more accurate.

a b s t r a c tThis paper describes the case for inclusive design developed by the Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge. This is based on 10 years experience researching inclusive design and promoting it in industry. The approach is a pragmatic one, bridging from where many companies currently are to a more inclusive approach. This paper uses the starting point that 'it is normal to be different' with regards to a person's capabilities, in order to reframe the argument from a disability focus to one that examines population diversity as a whole. A practical commercial response to this diversity is described by representing capability variation using traditional market segments and personas. Finally different design responses are discussed that address the range of capabilities in the population.

Inclusive design has unique challenges because it aims to improve usability for a wide range of users. This typically includes people with lower levels of ability, as well as mainstream users. This paper examines the effectiveness of two methods that are used in inclusive design: user trials and exclusion calculations (an inclusive design inspection method). A study examined three autoinjectors using both methods (n=30 for the user trials). The usability issues identified by each method are compared and the effectiveness of the methods is discussed. The study found that each method identified different kinds of issues, all of which are important for inclusive design. We therefore conclude that a combination of methods should be used in inclusive design rather than relying on a single method. Recommendations are also given for how the individual methods can be used more effectively in this context.

No abstract