{"id":843,"date":"2019-12-01T00:22:36","date_gmt":"2019-12-01T05:22:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thecatalyst.com\/blog\/?p=843"},"modified":"2019-12-01T20:34:45","modified_gmt":"2019-12-02T01:34:45","slug":"inclusion-extends-to-accessibility-me-we","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thecatalyst.com\/blog\/inclusion-extends-to-accessibility-me-we\/","title":{"rendered":"Inclusion Extends to Accessibility: \u201cMe & We\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Is the progress of inclusion slowed by overlooking the obvious?<\/h1>\n

Inclusive workplaces, organizations, communities, and other cultures of belonging<\/em> cannot be sustained in spaces, buildings, and environments which are not \u201cinclusive\u201d for everyone\u2014fully accessible and barrier-free in their access, design, and construction.<\/h2>\n

Accessibility to public and private spaces and buildings should be an inclusive, universal design goal\u2014\u201cMe & We\u201d\u2014that extends intention to remove social and cultural prejudice and bias to include everyone determined to remove physical limitations and barriers.<\/p>\n

The point is we say we welcome diversity and inclusion and that we want the full spectrum of people to come together socially, culturally, and without prejudice\u2014inclusively. This push for inclusion means little if interior and building design and construction deliberately favor able-bodied adults and present a varying degree of obstruction to everyone, including even that privileged group.<\/p>\n

\u201cAccessible\u201d is a concept directed at those with disabilities and not inclusive of the able-bodied.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Is it time to disrupt \u201caccessibility?\u201d<\/h1>\n

Instead of this concept concentrating on dictating disability-specific concessions to interior and building design, isn\u2019t it time to begin with design that intends, from the beginning, to ensure everything is accessible to everyone<\/strong>\u2014every age, size, ability, capacity\u2026?<\/p>\n

The ubiquitous barriers are there: stairs, insufficient or unreliable elevators, poor lighting, heavy doors, slippery flooring, lack of railings, threshold steps, badly-designed bathrooms, lack of seating\u2026.<\/p>\n

The point is it\u2019s easier for able-bodied adults to overcome, ignore, or avoid these and other access interruptions, but they are still barriers that don\u2019t need to be designed into buildings undergoing renovations or new buildings in the first place.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the same \u201cstuck in the past\u201d thinking which gives strength to prejudice and bias which the inclusive movement must dispel. Technology continues to give us the false impression that digital capacity alone modernizes thinking and automatically overwrites destructive elements from the past.<\/p>\n

\"Electrical<\/a>

Electrical wall outlet<\/p><\/div>\n

For instance, many aspects of non-accessible building design have historic roots that are not in sync with today\u2019s standards or norms. The height of electrical outlets is a good example. That height off the floor was not set by user needs, but the height of a hammer handle. This was the widespread measurement standard used by construction workers to quickly, easily, and consistently place electrical outlets. No tape measure needed; no reading or math knowledge required.<\/p>\n

Trace back why hammer handles were a standard length and you\u2019ll discover how far back and to what degree of current irrelevancy the foundation of inaccessible buildings and spaces was laid. Easy to install, but not ideal for users<\/strong> of any age or physical state today:<\/p>\n