Automotive - TH!NK

This case study describes how the Norwegian electric car company Think used Inclusive Design to explore how information interfaces could change in the vehicle of tomorrow. Users aged between 24 and 82 provided the inspiration for many new ideas.

Please see the source: Think - Electric Car

PROBLEM

How can a future car enhance communication and information flow?

Current car cockpits only provide limited information services such as route planning and voice calls. TH!NK saw an opportunity to go beyond this to enable connectivity between the car, home, workplace and the city.

APPROACH

Talking to users in context helped to explore digital connectivity.

Users with a wide range of ages and mobility requirements were interviewed whilst going about their daily routines. Many people were interviewed in their vehicles or on the street to get a better sense of context. They were asked to respond to images and questions aimed at gathering insights and aspirations with a particular focus on mobility and connectivity.

An interactive persona sheet was developed for each person as a tool to help capture and communicate their lifestyles and needs. This tool enabled the designer to turn the insights into design briefs.

RESULT

Design concepts that support the drivers and passengers of tomorrow.

The new digital dashboard can be adjusted to suit the preference of the driver by enlarging the size of the dials and improving contrast for older people. The display can also reduce visual clutter and show additional information such as weather or flight arrival times. The car also benefits the city providing wifi hotspots and street lighting for passers by and feeding electricity back into the national grid at peak times.

The research with users and persona sheets continue to be used by Think in their development process. This allows ideas to be pre-tested virtually with real people

TH!NK urban mobility concept from Norsk Designråd on Vimeo.

Ford Focus

Designed for easier access for older drivers and passengers, but appealing to young and old alike.

Unlike any car built by Ford before, the designers of the Focus were encouraged to design for the needs of older drivers as well as the usual younger target market. Ford even went so far as to develop a novel method of simulating the effects of old age using what became known as the 'Third Age Suit' (Steinfeld and Steinfeld, 2001).

The suit was designed to add the equivalent of 30 years of ageing to the wearer. This ageing effect is achieved by using joint stiffeners in the neck, back, stomach and knees to simulate the reduced flexion from conditions such as arthritis. The suit is the antithesis of dieting, adding both weight and bulk around the torso to mimic both the change in body shape and the difficulty in getting into and out of cars often associated with ageing. Visual impairments, such as cataracts, are also simulated through the use of spectacles with different lenses.

Designers were encouraged to wear the suit to increase their empathy for older users by letting them experience some of the difficulties faced by such drivers. As a result of their use of the suit, the Ford Focus offers many innovative features. For example, it has the most headroom of any cars in its class. The front door is wider and higher than that of the Escort and the seats are higher. This combination of door size and seat height makes it significantly easier to get in and out of the Focus. The dashboard controls are larger than those of its predecessor and have been designed to be easier to locate, grab and operate.

All of the features developed to make the car easier to operate and drive for older adults have not adversely affected the enjoyment of the Focus for younger drivers. Indeed, many of the features introduced are of benefit to all drivers. For example, the easier access to the car is good for parents with small children. Larger, easy to use controls are good for everyone.

The buttons and dials in the dashboard were designed to be easy to see and operate.

The new, more inclusive Focus has continued the sales success of its predecessors and is regularly the top-selling car in the UK.

Ford's main rival, General Motors (GM), has also embraced the need to design cars for older drivers. Rather than simulate the effects of age, GM has formed the Paragon research team featuring older and retired engineers. One of their earliest recommendations has been the relocation of the ignition switch to the dashboard to make it easier to operate for drivers with difficulty twisting their wrists.

None of the Ford's advertising makes reference to the investment in accessibility and inclusivity. The tacit implication is that Ford believes that admitting that the Focus was in part designed for older drivers may deter younger customers from purchasing it.

In other words, Ford apparently subscribes to the maxim that you can sell a young person's product to and older customer, but not vice versa. In other words, many customers are still young at heart, if not in body. Some commentators have even gone so far as wonder to whether it is even possible to sell an old person's product to an older customer. (Ford, 2000)

Text originally from: Inclusive Design - University of Cambridge

Countering Design Exclusion - An Introduction to inclusive design

Let me share some important ideas, notes and texts about Inclusive Design from this book written by Siemon Keates and John Clarkson.

Research has shown that while many companies agree with the principles of designing inclusively, they consider it impractical for them to adopt such practices. The reasons commonly cited include:

• Insufficient financial resources / time

• Inadequate access to product users

• Inexperience in dealing directly with users

• A lack of demand from commissioners of the design

Inclusive Design (an umbrella term for the broad collection of approaches, methods and practices for designing inclusively) aims to highlight and reduce such exclusion.

Remote Controls

The remote controls with very many buttons have become so complicated for one of two possible reasons. One explanation is that they have been designed by simply adding more buttons and features with scant regard for usability of the device. The other reason is that they have been deliberately designed to appear technically impressive ("It must be a good television if this has got so many controls"). Irrespective of the reasoning behind the design, the end result is often a remote control that is unnecessarily difficult to use. 

Designers frequently find themselves having to compromise between two conflicting design objectives, knowing that whatever solution they come up with will almost certainly prevent one group of users or other from being able to use the product or service being developed. To help achieve the best possible trade-off between such conflicting requirements necessitates providing the designer with detailed information about the population so that the designer can make an informed decision.

"...Designers ensure that their products and services address the needs of the widest possible audience."
(DTI Foresight, 2000)

To be real use in inclusive design, it is necessary to investigate the relationship between design for usability, design for accessibility and inclusive design.

Social Acceptability = Aesthetic Characteristics (match users capabilities and taste)

DBA Inclusive Design Challenge