O Shea Eoghan Conor, Pavia Sara, Dyer Mark, Craddock Gerald, Murphy Neil
a Department of Civil Structural & Environmental Engineering , Trinity College Dublin , Dublin , Ireland and.
b Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, National Disability Authority , Dublin , Ireland.
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(1):13-21. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2014.921842. Epub 2014 May 26.
Universal design (UD) provides an explanation of good design based on the user perspective, which are outlined through its principles, goals, and related frameworks. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the frameworks and methods for UD building evaluations and to describe how close they have come to describing what a universally designed building is.
Evaluation approaches are reviewed from the existing literature across a number of spatial disciplines, including UD, human geography and urban studies.
Four categories of UD evaluation methods are outlined, including (1) checklist evaluations, (2) value-driven evaluations, (3) holistic evaluations, and (4) invisible evaluations.
A number of suggestions are made to aid research aimed at developing UD evaluation in buildings. (1) Design standards and guidelines should be contested or validated where possible; (2) evaluation criteria should be contextual; (3) it may be more practical to have separate methodologies for contextualising UD to allow for the creation of an evaluating tool that is practical in use. Additionally, there is a difficulty in establishing a clear basis for evaluating how empathetic buildings are without expanding the methodological horizons of UD evaluation. Implications for Rehabilitation For universal design (UD) evaluation to address human need requires methods that are culturally, temporally, and typologically specific. Practical instruments for measuring UD need to be divorced from but contingent upon methods than can address local specificities. The process of evaluation can provide knowledge that can contest or validate the literature based sources such as design guidelines, or standards. UD evaluation requires constant renewal by searching for new, flexible strategies that can respond to socio-cultural change.
通用设计(UD)从用户角度对优秀设计进行了解释,通过其原则、目标和相关框架进行概述。本文旨在概述通用设计建筑评估的框架和方法,并描述它们在描述通用设计建筑的本质方面取得了多大进展。
从包括通用设计、人文地理学和城市研究在内的多个空间学科的现有文献中回顾评估方法。
概述了四类通用设计评估方法,包括(1)清单评估,(2)价值驱动评估,(3)整体评估,以及(4)无形评估。
针对旨在发展建筑通用设计评估的研究提出了一些建议。(1)设计标准和指南应尽可能受到质疑或验证;(2)评估标准应因地制宜;(3)可能更实际的做法是采用单独的方法将通用设计情境化,以便创建一种实际可用的评估工具。此外,在不拓展通用设计评估的方法视野的情况下,很难为评估建筑的同理心程度建立明确的基础。对康复的启示 为了使通用设计(UD)评估满足人类需求,需要采用在文化、时间和类型上具有特定性的方法。衡量通用设计的实用工具需要与能够解决地方特殊性的方法脱钩但又与之相关。评估过程可以提供知识,对基于文献的来源(如设计指南或标准)提出质疑或进行验证。通用设计评估需要通过寻找能够应对社会文化变化的新的灵活策略不断更新。