Development and design of a kitchen solution using Inclusive and Pleasure Design.

(1)

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF A KITCHEN SOLUTION USING INCLUSIVE AND PLEASURE DESIGN

Bachelor Degree Project in Product Design Engineering

22.5 ECTS

Autumn term/Spring term Year 2011-2012 Philip-Jan Flebus

SilviaFerriz Bosque Supervisor: Anna Brolin Examiner: Dan Högberg

(2)

Certificate of originality

This document is submitted by Philip-Jan Flebus and Silvia Ferriz Bosque to the University of Skövde as a Bachelor Degree Project, by examination and dissertation in the School of Technology and Society.

11th June, 2012

We hereby certify that all material in this dissertation, which is not our own work, has been identified and that no work is included for which a degree has already been conferred on us.

Signature:

________________________ _______________________

Philip-Jan Flebus Silvia Ferriz Bosque

(3)

Abstract

The largest age group in western society, the baby boomers, was born between 1943 and 1964, considering different definitions for the time span. All these people have an age between 62 and 48 years old. The life expectancy of these people is the highest in history and they will be more and more willing to stay independent as long as possible. The core of independence is being able to provide and take care of oneself. In order to do that, the instruments that surround the person have to be adjusted to the needs of the person and aid as much as possible.

This is the report of a Bachelor Degree Project that has the intention to develop a kitchen accessible for all people, both people with full ability and people with limited capabilities, using the inclusive design toolkit. At the same time it has to be appealing enough that people without limited capabilities also enjoy the use of this kitchen, this will be pursued by applying the pleasure design methodology. Apart from the objective to come up with a kitchen concept, attention will be given to study, compare and discuss the relation and compatibility between different methods and design philosophies.

The project resulted in a conceptual kitchen aimed to be suitable for nearly all people. The design was approached through various angles to obtain a broad variety of solutions, which was combined into one kitchen concept, to comply with the demands that a future user may have. The main aspects taken upon are the layout, storage solutions that require minimum effort and a stove and sink solution.

The kitchen concept complies with the predetermined requirements set forth in the project specifications. Extra attention was put into the storage methods. Not necessarily in the amount, although most space was taken advantage of, but in the ways the user can use the storage spaces. The stove and sink are located on a height-adjustable platform for maximum comfort and adaptation to the user. The layout was determined according to the space needed for mobility, storage and function.

(4)

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful to our supervisor, Anna Brolin, whose valuable comments, guidance and support enabled us to develop an understanding of the subject. We also would like to thank our families and all of those who supported us in any respect during the completion of the project. Without all of you this work would not have been possible.

(5)

1. Introduction

In this first chapter, the context of the project will be explored. A brief look at the process, philosophy, different paths and methodology, will be followed by defining the aim of the project.

The aging of the population is a challenge that has to be intercepted by all aspects of society. One of the aspects it affects is the way products are designed.

The kitchen nowadays is a place with many challenges. It is generally not adapted to people with limited capabilities and when it is, it is not appealing to people that do not need the extra needs. Apart from the functionality it may or may not appeal to the person with limited capabilities either, because this requires a different starting point for an additional purpose. A user that needs an adapted kitchen usually has to make these specific changes, which in many cases undermine the aesthetics in favour of the functionality. This does not have to be the case when the kitchen is designed from the start following a comprehensive path and outline of the process.

As starting point and main reference to inclusive design, the inclusive design toolkit, developed by the Engineering Design Centre at the University of Cambridge, was used (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011). It is a comprehensive system to design products that reach an as large as possible audience. It follows a cycle of steps that analyse the needs of the user, the functionality of the product and the potential acceptance.

Pleasure design is a methodology, set forth by Patrick Jordan, which focuses on applying the four human motivations or pleasures he identifies as the keys to a successful design in the marketplace (Jordan, 2002). The four pleasures (or motivations) are physiological, psychological, sociological and ideological.

With the purpose to guide the group in the development of the project a problem specification is required. The specification states the primary aims of the project as well as defines the problems to solve concerning the users. This chapter helps to get a clearer view of the project.

1.1. Background

Designing is nothing new and has always formed an important part in forming a society by fulfilling human needs. When designing it is important to understand people and the way they interact with the environment surrounding them. This is a concept known to men for centuries. “The architect (or designer) should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning...For without these considerations, the healthiness of the dwelling cannot be assured.” (Vitruvius, circa 100 BC). What Vitruvius means by this is that in order to be able to cater to the needs of people when designing, it is necessary to have a known how of many categories and disciplines, including understanding the limitations of the human body. This is also limited by the technologies at each time.

Today the population is getting older and older which in turn may result in that people stay home longer before they move to a nursing home (Design Council, 2001). With increasing age usually come disabilities (International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation, 2010). However, current kitchens are usually developed and adjusted for people without disabilities. They do not take into account different heights, least amount of effort to lift or tilt plates and kitchen utensils, safety systems specifically linked to mental degeneration, poor vision, etc.

Due to this, some users find difficulties in everyday task such as food preparation, opening cabinets, turning on knobs, reaching out to the extractor etc. In recent years this problem has been taking into account when designing all kinds of products. For instance ergonomic

(7)

kitchen tools like knives and peelers, adjustable heights on countertops and cabinets that come down or go up (Coleman, 2004).

As the project seemed quite extensive, in discussion with the projects supervisor, it was decided to narrow the project. This resulted in limiting the kitchen concept to the stove, sink and storage. However, notes and advice on how other functions should be installed will be included.

1.2. Aim

The project consists of designing a kitchen concept using methods based on the guidelines in the inclusive design toolkit, developed by the design department from Cambridge University (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011). The toolkit serves to develop a kitchen that supports and appeals to people with difficulties. This project, in addition to developing a conceptual kitchen through the inclusive design approach, tries to understand and follow the philosophy of pleasure design, put best forward in Jordan’s “pleasure design” (Jordan, 2003).Together with inclusive and pleasure design, methods described by Cross and others will be worked with. All parts will contribute to reach a concept that is user centred (see figure 1.1).

This project aims at developing a kitchen concept that is useful for all people, regardless of disabilities, and appeal to everyone, through inclusive and pleasure design. Limits for the inclusive design will exclude people with vision disability level V1 and V2. V1 level are people that cannot tell by the light where the windows are and V2 level people cannot see the shapes of furniture in a room. This is an extreme disability that will affect a small percentage and requires a highly specific design for their needs (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

A kitchen including sink, stove and storage will be designed, attending user’s necessities such as big spaces, appropriate heights and easy to use appliances. The result will be a kitchen that everyone would and could use, regardless of disabilities and age. The result will be presented through a project report along with the development process, visualisations through sketches, CAD-models, including a virtual fitting trial during which it will be able to see how some standard users fit in the developed kitchen, and recommendations for further development.

Figure 1.1. Project’s theory cycle.

(8)

2. Literature Study

This chapter describes the theories, tools and methods that are studied and applied throughout the project. It provides a history of the methodology and an understanding of what the goal is of these methods. Also included in this chapter is a benchmarking that provides an insight in previous applications of inclusive design.

2.1. Inclusive Design

First and foremost, the term Inclusive Design is not the only common way to describe or talk about the same concept. The mostly used term besides Inclusive design is Universal Design. Other terms like Design for All (DfA), Transgenerational Design, Barrier-free Design, and Lifespan Design have all overlapping definitions and criteria that share a consensus of ideas (Campi, 2011; Norwegian Design Council, 2010). In this report the most common term used will be Inclusive Design; however, Universal Design might appear depending on the source it comes from.

The first person to use the term Universal Design was Ronald Mace, who, being an architect, product designer and educator, described the concept of designing all products and the built environment to be usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life (College of Design, 2012).

The social awareness for people most in need of adjusted needs and help, people with disabilities as well as the third generation with limited mobility, is becoming more present and obvious in many aspects of daily life. One of the mayor aspects that are being confronted with this is product design. The design process is more and more affected by the possibility of including, or excluding for that matter, a customer, based on the usability of the product. Inclusive design is an overall approach to design that empathizes with the design of products and/or services available to a large majority of society without the need for adaptation or special design. Thus it is possible to say that inclusive design can contribute to greater use of the product because it has a wider range of implicit users.

A few definitions of Inclusive Design and similar concepts follow:

“Universal design is a strategy, which aims to make the design and composition of different environments and products accessible and understandable as well as usable by everyone, to the greatest extent in the most independent and natural manner possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design solutions” (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 2001).

Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design at the Royal College of Art in London (2010) defines Inclusive Design as neither a new genre of design, nor a separate specialism, but as a general approach to designing in which designers ensure that their products and services address the needs of the widest possible audience, irrespective of age or ability. Two major trends have driven the growth of Inclusive Design (also known as Design for All and as Universal Design in the USA) - population ageing and the growing movement to integrate disabled people into mainstream society.

“Inclusive design applies an understanding of customer diversity to the design of mainstream products to better satisfy the needs of more people” (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

To understand inclusive design, it should be clear that inclusive design is not another step in the design process. It is not a way of designing products easily or to be used by only targeted users with certain disabilities. Inclusive design should be applied throughout the entire design process, resulting in pleasant and desirable products that are useful for the vast majority of customers.

(9)

In 1999 the Smithsonian Institution at Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum held an exhibition, also shown in Toronto in 2000, called ‘Unlimited by Design’. The exhibition defined universal design using an acronym of the word ‘Design’.

Demographics: Accommodating many individuals' abilities and characteristics.

Economy: Availability and affordability.

Senses: Accessing information through several senses: sight, sound, or touch.

Intuitive: Easy to understand.

Generation: Serving people of different ages.

Navigation: Reducing physical and intellectual barriers.

(Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum, 1999)

The Engineering Design Centre of Cambridge University explains the ethos of inclusive design as followed in three parts: user centred, population aware and business focused.

User centred: Inclusive design adapts itself on the user. It starts with looking at what the user wants, requires and is able to do, instead of making the user adapt to the product.

Population aware: A typical misguided viewpoint is that someone is either disabled or fully able, yet a wide spectrum of capabilities is clearly apparent within any population. An understanding of quantitative population statistics can also inform design decisions.

Business focused: Failure to correctly understand the users can result in products that exclude people unnecessarily and leave many more frustrated, leading to downstream problems, such as increased customer support. Successful implementation of inclusive design can result in a product that is ultimately more profitable (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

A successful product can be: Functional, Usable, Desirable and Viable (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011). A product is seen as successful when it complies with a combination of these characters. A perfect product would combine all of them in perfect compatibility.

o Functional: A functional product is one that has certain features that meet the needs of the user. The more elaborated a product is, the more needs will have to be met and the functionality will be less guaranteed.

o Usable: The ease of use of a product leads to a satisfactory feeling. If on the contrary, its use is complicated and requires certain skills, it can result in a frustrated user, which is reflected in poor product design. The easier it is to use a product; more users will have access to it.

o Desirable: A desired product is one that is demanded at a given moment according to the needs of the user at that moment.

o Viable: The profitability of a product reflects its success in the market. In general, a product that is functional, usable and desirable will be a successful product as long as it enters the market at the right time and at the right cost (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

Once understood what inclusive design is, it is clear why an inclusive design approach should be used instead of a conventional approach. Inclusive design provides a better design with higher user satisfaction and a greater market acceptance. Taking into account the needs of different users, the design specifications of any product depend on the age of the consumer, the difference in their physical and psychological capabilities and simplicity of the product. With this, it is said that different users have different needs according to their position in society.

There are a continuously increasing percentage of older people in our society, and their age is increasing as well (see figure 2.1). This creates an obligation and opportunity of designing

(10)

new products that take into account the specific needs that are required by this high percentage of society.

Figure 2.1. Projected percentage of the European population by age groups (IIASA, 1996).

According to IIASA (1996) in only forty-five years, from 1950 to 1995, the European elderly population of 65 years and above has more than doubled from forty-five million to hundred and one million people. By year 2050 this figure will have risen to hundred- seventy-three million people (see figure 2.1). Ageing is most significant in Southern Europe. According to UN projections, almost one third of the population (32.5%) will be age 65 or older in 2050. In Northern Europe, by contrast, "only" 25% of the population will be aged 65 or older in 2050.

These outlook feeds the sense of need for a comprehensive solution on design as well. If a product can be used both by people without disabilities and by people with disabilities at various levels, either visual, mobility or others, and also maintain its aesthetic function, then the design manages to satisfy a large number of users and is therefore of great value.

This is pursued by inclusive design.

Another issue of concern in inclusive design is the simplicity of the product. As the years advance, technologies become more and more complex. It is very common to find electronic devices with dozens of applications of which the consumer will end up using only a small number. Inclusive design aims to reduce the complexity of designing, developing simple and easy to use products. This refers back to the usability of the product, making it accessible to a wider population.

The way of working in inclusive design is simple and very methodical. A successful design requires the right decisions at a first stage, as making changes in later stages can be very expensive (RNIB, 2009). Concept design is based on four fundamental questions:

o What are the needs?

o How can the needs be met?

o Are the needs met?

o What should we do next?

(Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

The design process is developed through successive cycles (see figure 2.2) in which the questions are answered by exploration, creation and evaluation and guided by project management.

(11)

Figure 2.2. Graphical guide to inclusive design process (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

Inclusive concept generation is directed by a criterion in which needs, concepts and evidence must be clear and well defined (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011). For this purpose it has a set of principles:

o Repeat to refine. The needs have to be clearly understood and this will require the repetition of the successive stages of exploration, development and evaluation until they are set correctly.

o Test early and test often. It is important to examine the solutions from the beginning. The economic cost will increase as the design progresses.

o Strive for simplicity. Can you do it with less? This is the question to ask oneself to get a product that is simpler but equally functional.

o Consider the whole user journey.

o Dig deeper. Extensive research is important to know the requirements and needs of the users.

o More than just users.

o Challenge assumptions.

o Let ideas breathe. Let ideas rest to help a good evolution of the same.

o Prove it. It is very important to complement opinions with evidence.

o Wear different hats. Be creative.

Following the successive stages of concept generation, and the above mentioned inclusive

(12)

different needs. Different user capabilities are taken into account throughout the process.

Disabilities in vision, hearing, thinking, communication, search and stretch, dexterity and locomotion have been described and evaluated by the Engineering Design Centre of the University of Cambridge (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

Fitting trials

Fitting trials are a common technique employed in ergonomics evaluation (Marshall et al., 2003). Fitting trials allow design concepts to be tested, validated and optimised for users, both statically and dynamically (DCA-DESIGN, 2012).

These trials can be applied using experimental techniques in which sample individuals from the target group interact with the concept whilst these interactions are observed, interviewed and recorded. The observations are then analysed to determine whether changes have to be made according to shape, size and format (DCA-DESIGN, 2012).

Whilst traditionally this process has taken place with real people and full size mock-ups, increasingly the process is becoming computer supported and makes use of CAD models and human manikins in a ‘virtual’ fitting trial (Marshall et al., 2003).

Virtual fitting trials are a computer techniques employed to evaluate a design with respect to its ergonomic aspects. A number of different sized virtual manikins are selected to represent the target group for the design. Then the virtual users are measured against criteria to determine if the design is suitable (Marshall et al., 2003).

“Virtual prototyping emerges as a new technology to replace existing physical prototypes for product evaluation, which are costly and time consuming to manufacture” (Paul and Lee, 2011).

In the last years the use of 3D software to create a virtual product is becoming more and more popular. In industries such as the automobile industry, which have a very complex design process and ergonomics are an obvious element, the use of this particular software is more and more implemented to obtain a more profitable and competitive product (Högberg, 2005). Ergonomics evaluation is an important point in the development of a product. In a virtual performance of the product this is a vital matter of importance, since the analysis of ergonomics can become more difficult resulting in a time consuming and expensive interaction (Högberg, 2005; Porter et al., 1995).

Doing virtual fitting has the big advantage of not having the need to construct a life-size prototype to test it. If what is wanted to be tested is a product that fits in the hand it is very possible to make a mock-up to get the feeling and do a life test. But in a case of designing a larger product like a car or an interactive space, like a kitchen, it comes very much in handy to do the testing in a virtual manner. This reduces drastically the costs of the design process and reduces the risk on unexpected faults in the end design (Paul and Lee, 2011).

The disadvantage of the virtual fitting trial is the limitations of the manikins. The human modelling in most virtual reality systems is not able to describe and demonstrate the nuances of human activities and signatures (Mårdberg et al., 2012). Also the generalization of the manikins is a problem. Different people have a different posture and move differently for the same reach manoeuvres. Even the same person moves differently over time. This is a weakness in the use of virtual manikins (Mårdberg et al., 2012) but that can actually also be translated back to normal fitting trials where everything happened in a physical ambient, and each person is also different to the next person.

With the use of virtual tools such as Digital Human Modelling (DHM), it is possible to recreate how the product looks like when being used and perform an ergonomic analysis.

Postures, sizes and spaces are analysed in order to comply with the ergonomic specifications. A few examples of commonly available DHM software are Jack (Paul and

(13)

Lee, 2011), Ramsis (Human Solution Group, 2012), Human Builder (Dassault Systèmes, 2012) and Creo Manikin (Parametric Technology Corporation, 2012), an example of non- commercial DHM software is HADRIAN (Marshall et al., 2004).

2.2. Pleasure Design

In order to give a consumer pleasure in the design that was created for that purpose, it is necessary to first understand what that consumer wants out of it. Pleasure design is understanding the consumer, knowing what they want and then giving it to them. Pleasure design can be related to the emotional rather than the logical impact of a design. The four pleasures that serve as a framework for considering pleasure with products are devised by one of the world’s leading anthropologists, Professor Lionel Tiger in “The pursuit of pleasure”

(Tiger, 1992). He has devised four categories that humans can experience; physio-pleasure, socio-pleasure, psycho-pleasure, and ideo-pleasure.

Physio-pleasure is perceived through the body, derived from the sensory organs. These pleasures are triggered through touch, taste and smell. Many products give a sense of luxury through their materials, this can be perceived by vision, but it will never reveal its full magnitude of quality until the materials are touched. Olfactory pleasures concern the smell of a new product. The smell of a new car can be a pleasurable factor for the owner.

To the extent that even used car dealers use new-car-smell sprays to make their cars smell newer. Another example, in western society, thin and heavy products are considered to be from good quality (Jordan, 2002).

Socio-pleasure has all to do with relationships with other people and society as a whole. A very successful product that relies on this type of pleasure is the mobile phone. In order to form a part of society, a cell phone is a necessary product to have. Almost any meeting or event is organised or confirmed at one time or the other through mobile phone. Getting together with friends is not organised days in advance like it used to be. But in a matter of hours or even less, a place and time is set that is convenient for all parties. Also last minute changes can be made, exactly because of the all-time availability through mobile phone.

Someone who does not have a mobile phone and thus is not ‘available’ at all times can be socially out casted because of the difficulty to contact. Another sociological example can be the campaign launched by De Beers in the first half of the twentieth century. De Beer, who almost completely owned the diamond industry at that time, was in difficulties. They launched an extremely effective campaign to associate diamonds with romantic love. In fact it was so effective that it became a moral obligation for men to buy diamond rings for their fiancées. The diamond has become an object that through intelligent marketing has become filled with meaning and has come to represent love (Jordan, 2002).

Psycho-pleasure is about the mental status a product puts us in when using it. It is highly linked with usability. Can people use the product without having to work too hard or getting frustrated by it? Examples of products that answer this question are software programs. Other aspects are the connections made through form and sound, the shaper a keel of a boat, the faster it looks. Same happens with irons, customers judge the speed of an iron by its shape. With a sharper point the iron appears faster. Another domestic appliance that relies on the psychological impact is the vacuum cleaner. Customers seek power in vacuum cleaners, and one apparent way to judge that power is the noise the engine makes. The louder the engine, the more suction power it provides. This is a relation that has de-motivated scientist from further developing silencing technology, resulting in a cheaper and noisier vacuum cleaner. Another example is the sound a car door makes when closed. BMW, for example, has done many researches in this area. A low frequency, solid clunk of their doors, gives the customer a reassuring feeling of quality. Other psychological

(14)

messages of quality are received by the feeling of objects and materials; these are highly connected with physio-pleasures (Jordan, 2002).

Ideo-pleasures appeal to the people in a broader way of being perceived by others. They relate to their tastes, values and aspirations. Tastes are judgments of preference without being morally judgmental. The choice of a blue sweater over a red sweater has no moral impact but simply the taste of the person. Values, by contrast, have a moral component.

This can be environmentally motivated for example. This person will choose environmentally friendly products because he/she thinks this is the morally correct thing to do. Due to this, the Toyota Prius is a huge success. Aspirations are about how people wish to define themselves. If they want to be seen as a modern person, then the latest gadget might appeal to them. They reassure, or undermine, their self-image by the objects they use (Jordan, 2002).

In conclusion, in order for a product to be successful it has to comply with at least one of these four pleasures. The more people can relate to the product in their likes, ideology or the way it makes them feel, the product will be accepted by more people. In order to design for people, the first thing to realise is what the people want. This can only be achieved by understanding them. Once the designer understands how to satisfy the previous four pleasures, the design will automatically be accepted by the nature of people as they are subconsciously triggered to approve or disapprove according to their culture, ideology and instincts (Jordan 2002; 2003).

2.3. Benchmarking

Poor inclusive design products are found everywhere. Any product that presents any difficulty in its use can be an example of that. On a daily basis electronic devise, packaging and methods of transport that are difficult to use by people with certain disabilities are encountered. For example, buses for public transport (or travel coaches for that matter) that are inaccessible for people in wheelchairs without the help of the driver, street signs that are unusable for blind people or mobile phones that are impossible to use for people with compromised dexterity. However, society is getting more aware of the problem and its need to address, so more and more designers design products taking into account the need for being accessible to an as large audience as possible. If a design works well for people with disabilities, it works better for everyone.

If added to that, the product can satisfy some aesthetic requirements, the usage of that product will be even more satisfactory. Usability and aesthetics are mutually compatible.

Introducing pleasure design can make the difference between a user friendly product, and a user friendly product that has the potential to be successful in the market.

Exactly these types of products are becoming more present in today’s households.

Housing, workspaces, public spaces and private spaces like kitchens and bathrooms are more accessible to anyone than ever, without discriminating age or capabilities. Some examples of inclusive design that respect the essence of pleasure design are described in the following.

2.3.1. Study of Existing solutions

Electronic apparatus, automobiles, public transport and even child parks have been adapted so everyone can share them. Most of them come accompanied by an attractive aesthetic design.

(15)

"No Step" Bus Systems

Use of public transport has been an obstacle for people in wheel chairs for a long time. In the last couple of years a bus entry system has been incorporated that allows everyone to get off and on seamlessly. However, there is still a lot of progress to be made concerning public transport. Many elderly people still find it difficult to travel. Making transportation conveniently accessible is one of universal

designs goals (see figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6. No Step Bus System. “Source:

pbs.org”

Mobile phone

The emporia TIME mobile phone (see figure 2.3) is designed for people of all ages.

It works without a standard menu system.

Functions, such as texting, are activated by pressing special buttons positioned on the side of the device, which studies show to be

most ergonomically suitable. Figure 2.3. The Emporia TIME Mobile phone. “Source:

emporia-time.com”.

Toyota access aid system

Toyota created an adapted car for specific users (see figure 2.4). It could be considered to be a longer and costlier design process but the production for smaller audiences, that are also viable for user without disabilities, is a way to create a social conscience that empathizes with the disabled. On another note, it also reinforces their social ideological image. Toyota is very conscience about the perception people have, as can be showed by the Prius, which presents an ecological ideology that is followed by many. More on this can be found in the pleasure design chapter.

Figure 2.4. Access aid seat prototype. “Source: Toyota.co.uk”

Signage for the Lighthouse, NYC

This is one of the first signage systems that addressed the needs of everyone. It incorporates the use of Braille, texture, colours, shapes, contrast, and even sound to help everyone to find their way (see figure 2.5). The designers carried out an exhaustive research in the way people navigate spaces. They created prototypical environments and tested their ideas on real people. This design is from Roger

Whitehouse and his design team. Figure 2.5. Signage for the lighthouse NYC. “Source:

pbs.org”

(16)

The following was learned from these examples:

o The disposition of controls is important and should be within the limits that are ergonomically accepted.

o A new design process might be longer and costlier than a previous one, but if it serves a specific purpose this would be justified.

o Communicating a message can be achieved through all senses.

o Products no matter how big can and should be adaptable to the user and not vice- versa.

2.3.2. Study of Similar Solutions to Related Problems

The kitchen has had a prominent role in the increasing usage of inclusive design. Due to its unquestioned importance in the house, there is a continuous effort to make it as accessible as possible. For these means, designs for easy use of electronic appliances, kitchen gear and even the spaces have been developed.

OXO “Good Grips”

These kitchen utensils address usability for everyone (see figure 2.7). Adding a rubber

‘sleeve’, they results in easy to use, regardless of strength or manual dexterity.

With this addition a smarter design is achieved. This is not cheaper than the classic potato peeler made out of steel, but it is safer, easier and more comfortable to

use, resulting in a more satisfying activity. Figure 2.7. ‘OXO’ Good Grips. “Source: oxo.com”

POP food storage

POP food storage is a hermetic container which can be easily opened without much effort by pressing an extra large button on the top (see figure 2.9). This product requires a low physical effort, enables one hand operation for opening and closing and has a design that is appealing to all users.

Figure 2.9. POP food storage system. “Source:

organizeit.com”

Oven with Liftomatic door

The Siemens oven is situated on the wall hanging over the worktable (see figure 2.8).

When opened, the base of the oven goes down electronically until hanging right over the worktable. This makes it easier to put in and take out food. This oven makes for a big change in conventional ovens. It takes away the need to bend over for handling the food or looking through the glass. This design improves usage for a large range of users and reduces the amount of strength required.

Figure 2.8. ‘Siemens Oven with liftomatic door’. “Source:

siemens.com”

(17)

Lavamobile Washbasin

Lavabomobile is an electronically adjustable washbasin (see figure 2.10). People of all stature can use it, even wheelchair users. It can travel both to a higher and a lower position so it is easy to use to children or taller standing users. The wide range of users that can use Lavabomobile makes it a convenient an inclusive design. The design is from GianDonnini Paola Stuttgart,

Germany. Figure 2.10. Lavabomobile washbasin with telescope.

“Source: ud-germany.de”

2.3.3. Kitchen Solutions

The kitchen is one of the most important places in a home. It is one of the most frequented throughout the day, either to cook, eat or socialize. Therefore, designs are carried out that facilitate the daily use of the kitchen by people in wheelchairs, elderly or with disabilities to fully able people.

In recent years, kitchen designs have been more accessible and adapted to all types of users, following and complying with the premises of inclusive design. These premises are the following:

o Size and Layout

o Ergonomics and Appliances o Convenience features and Storage (White & Arch, 2010)

Size & Layout

In terms of space and composition in the kitchen: it must have open spaces but the functions must be available to everyone. A well adapted kitchen is one that allows you to move quietly without hindrance to the user. A kitchen with knee clearance or with a pullout table or a U / L-shape kitchen can make the use and movement in the kitchen easier.

Having the L or U shape, the user avoids having to make large displacements around the kitchen (see figure 2.11). Everything is more within arm’s reach and the user may just have to turn around his or her own axis (White & Arch, 2010).

Figure 2.11. Layout for wheel chair users.

(18)

Ergonomics and Appliances

It is important that the various functions are adapted to the form and use of the human body. Different heights for work surfaces and appliances, easy access to various tools and functions of the kitchen and a good organisation of the spaces will allow the user to feel more comfortable and encounter fewer difficulties in the kitchen (see figure 2.12) (White &

Arch, 2010).

Figure 2.12. Different height surfaces (White & Arch, 2010).

Convenience Features and Storage

Even when the spaces are well distributed and adapted to all users, when the different functions do not facilitate the activities in the kitchen, then inclusive design objectives are not met. There are many accessories that make the use of a kitchen more comfortable.

These are further described in the following sections. Some of these accessories are an induction cook top, pullout table and shelving, cabinet drawers, under-sink knee space, adaptable height sink and cabinets or different levels of lighting as seen in figure 2.13 (White & Arch 2010).

Figure 2.13. Inclusive design sink (White & Arch, 2010).

(19)

3. Customer Need Study

For carrying out the project in its first stages it was decided to conduct a few methods that would help to get the principal ideas on which it would be possible to elaborate on. It was decided to begin doing interviews to get a sense of what the potential client would like to be offered. The interviews were aimed at users that would influence in the pleasure design aspect. A small number of people were observed to help finding problems that people who rely on an inclusive design would encounter.

3.1. Interviews

The interviews were conducted to get a visual on the consumer demand of functions in the kitchen. The objective of the interviews was centred on the likes and dislikes of the interviewed. This determined a certain orientation in the concept development. The interview centred more on the aspect of pleasure design instead of inclusive design. Thus, no persons eligible especially for the inclusive design concept were interviewed. The questions refer to the main aspects of the kitchen, the time spent in the kitchen and materials. It was also asked whether people would like to have the kitchen as principal area of happening in the house.

The interviews consisted of a questionnaire of twelve questions, apart from the demographics from the interviewed population (age, gender and capabilities). Questions related to the general likes and expectancies one wishes to find in a modern kitchen.

The conclusions obtained from the results are that there is a clear difference between the likes of people from different age generations. Young people do not spent that much time in the kitchen as older people. This can be due to when the older generations were still young the kitchen was still a main area in the house. Generally speaking, the vast majority prefers a spacious kitchen with a big working surface. Furthermore, the usual hardware like stove, oven and sink cannot be missed. The majority of the interviewed also wants a kitchen big enough to fit table and chairs.

The questionnaire and extensive results can be found in Appendix I.

3.2. Observations

If an observation of the users is made during the analysis of the problem as users interact with existing products, it will be easier to find out what people currently do and have problems with. This way, the designer can get direct feedback about users´ responses to the product (Kahmann, 2000; Sims, 2003).

To understand the problems that people who rely on an inclusive design encounter in the daily use of a kitchen, various older people were observed during their daily cooking chores. This was undertaken in the comfort of their own living spaces. The subjects of observation were asked to give permission to be observed while they continued their cooking, doing dishes and other general activities that might be done in the kitchen in the process. During the observation, the focus was laid on the difficulties the person had in force, dexterity and locomotion. Two women and one man in a wheelchair were the observed subjects. After the experience it was concluded that the necessity for an adapted kitchen is very clear.

Our first observed was a woman of 90 years old. One of the mayor difficulties was to lift a full cooking pot of water. She had also difficulties with bending further then the height of her middle or reaching to places higher than her shoulders. For this incapability the solutions she came up with respectively was leaving the plates out on the counter were they

(20)

used to reach to the extractor control buttons. An overall difficulty in moving from one place to the other was observed that made it necessary for everything to be in close reach and still be spacious enough.

The second observed person was a 77 years old man, who was also a wheelchair user. The kitchen was already adapted in certain levels to wheelchairs in terms of space, placement and distribution, for example, a lower working table and sink and retractable cabinets.

However, the person found it desirable that it was more spacious still to avoid bumping into the counter and cabinets while manoeuvring. Also some furniture was out of his reach and thus not usable due to high placement. Despite of age and disabilities, the dexterity and force are still that of an average man in his hands and arms.

Finally the third observed was a female, 68 years old. Her main disability is arthritis, a degenerative disease that affects the joints, making movement difficult or in some cases even impossible. She had to live with it since her early forties and it impedes her to grab and lift objects that require much force. Another problem is turning knobs from the cooking stove. Despite of her arthritis, moving around the kitchen is no obstacle to finishing shores without extra effort.

Various conclusions can be taken from these observations. First of all, even though these three people have a clear need of an extra attention in the design process to cater to their specific needs, they have all three very different needs. This would be the main challenge to take into account different needs in a same task. For instance if a part would be designed low enough for a wheelchair user, it might be uncomfortable for the other person who needs everything at a height so not to have to bend over and reach. Heights and space are thus one of the most important aspects that are to be taken into account. Part of designing that space effectively would be allowing the user to have to shift place as little as possible within a task. For example, the entire action of cooking potatoes, from peeling to taking the pot out of the cabinet, filling it with water, placing it on the fire and finally take the pot with hot water of the stove and pour out the water in the sink. This “simple” action withholds risks and can cause discomforts for people with limited capabilities. Another conclusion we can take from the observations is a possible need to centralise command controls. For example, eliminate the need to reach above shoulder height to control the extractor. To conclude the observations, the following have been considered key points to take into account during the design process. Heights are very important, not just the counter tops but also where the cabinets and controls are located. Distance between different functions, to complete a whole task, have to be centralised and ordered in an effective layout.

3.3. User Capabilities

The following tables (see table 3.1 – 3.5) explain the different levels of user capabilities.

These levels are determined through the inclusive design toolkit from the University of Cambridge (Inclusive design toolkit, 2011).

(21)

Table. 3.1. Vision ability level (in increasing order).

V1 Cannot tell by the light where the windows are.

V2 Cannot see the shapes of furniture in a room.

V3 Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if close to his face.

V4 Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend who is at arm's length away.

V5 Cannot see well enough to read a newspaper headline.

V6 Cannot see well enough to read a large print book.

V7 Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a room.

V8 Has difficulty recognising a friend across the road.

V9 Has difficulty reading ordinary newspaper print.

V10 Full vision ability.

Table. 3.2. Thinking ability level.

T1 11 disabilities T7 5 disabilities T2 10 disabilities T8 4 disabilities T3 9 disabilities T9 3 disabilities T4 8 disabilities T10 2 disabilities T5 7 disabilities T11 1 disabilities T6 6 disabilities T12 None Thinking disabilities:

o Often loses track of what is being said in the middle of a conversation o Thoughts tend to be muddled or slow

o Often gets confused about what time of day it is

o Cannot watch a 30 minute TV programme all the way through, and tell someone what it was about

o Cannot read a short newspaper article

o Cannot write a short letter to someone without help o Cannot count well enough to handle money

o Cannot remember a message and pass it on correctly

o Often forgets to turn things off, such as fires, cookers or taps o Often forgets the names of friends and family that are seen regularly o Often forgets what was supposed to be doing in the middle of something

Table 3.3. Dexterity abilities.

D1 Cannot pick up and hold a mug of coffee with either hand D2 Cannot turn a tap or control knobs on a cooker with either hand

D3 Cannot pick up and carry a pint of milk or squeeze the water from a sponge with either hand

D4 Cannot pick up a small object such as a safety pin with either hand

D5 Has difficulty picking up and pouring from a full kettle or serving food from a pan using a spoon or ladle

D6 Has difficulty unscrewing the lid of a coffee jar or using a pen and pencil D7 Cannot pick up and carry a 2,5 kg bag of potatoes with either hand D8 Has difficulty wringing out light washing or using a pair of scissors

(22)

D9 Can pick up and hold a mug of tea or coffee with one hand but not with the other D10 Can turn a tap or control knob with one hand but not with the other. Can squeeze water

from a sponge with one hand but not the other

D11 Can pick up a small object such as a safety pin with one hand but not with the other. Can pick up and carry a pint of milk with one hand but not the other. Has difficulty tying a bow in laces or strings

D12 Full dexterity ability

Table 3.4. Hearing ability level (in increasing order).

H1 Cannot hear sounds at all

H2 Cannot follow a TV programme with the volume turned up

H3 Has difficulty hearing someone talking in a loud voice in a quiet room H4 Cannot hear a doorbell, alarm clock or telephone bell

H5 Cannot use the telephone

H6 Cannot follow a TV programme at a volume others find acceptable H7 Has difficulty hearing someone talking in a normal voice in a quiet room H8 Has great difficulty following a conversation against background noise H9 Full hearing ability

Table 3.5. Locomotion ability level (in increasing order).

L1 Cannot walk at all

L2 Can only walk a few steps without stopping or severe discomfort. Cannot walk up and down one step

L3 Has fallen 12 or more times in the last year

L4 Always needs to hold on to something to keep balance L5 Cannot walk up and down a flight of 12 stairs

L6 Cannot walk 45 meters without stopping or severe discomfort L7 Cannot bend down far enough to touch knees and straighten up again

L8 Cannot bend down and pick up something from the floor and straighten up again

L9 Cannot walk 180meters without stopping or severe discomfort. Can only walk up and down a flight of 12 stairs if holds on and takes a rest. Often needs to hold on to something to keep balance. Has fallen 3 or more times in the last year

L10 Can only walk up and down a flight of twelve stairs if holds on (doesn’t need a rest) L11 Cannot bend down to sweep up something from the floor and straighten up again L12 Can only walk up and down a flight of stairs if goes sideways or one step at a time L13 Cannot walk approximately 350meters without stopping or severe discomfort L14 Full locomotion ability

3.4. Personas

To help explore the needs of the user, a group of personas were generated which helps to personalise the problem and get closer to the user and empathise with their situation (see figure 3.1)(Inclusive Design Toolkit, 2011). By immerging into the daily life of personas, problems and difficulties can emerge that otherwise would not be encountered and possibly overlooked. The created personas represent a large group of people with the same characteristics and abilities for whom the project is designed. The following personas where created in order to have a diverse base of potential users to take into account. The

(23)

personas were developed during various brainstorming sessions and are thus a product of the teams rationalising. During the creation of these personas, it was very important to the design team to come up with a wide variety of profiles to be able to compare the kitchen to all their needs. This way it is imaginable how the kitchen will be practically used by very different people. Users of all age groups are included, as well as users with different capabilities.

Figure 3.1. Personas.

Mary is an 82-year-old woman who was a secretary for thirty-five years. She is a very organised woman but has been suffering from loss of memory due to ageing. Her thinking capabilities have reduced to a T7 level. A T7 level means the person has at least 5 thinking disabilities out of the list from the user capabilities thinking ability table that can be found in the inclusive design toolkit (see table 3.2 for thinking capabilities). For all the user capabilities levels that will be used in this chapter see the tables in 3.3. Her thoughts are slower and she cannot read and write a small letter without help. The writing is mostly because of the arthritis, which has her dexterity to a D5 level (see table 3.3.) She also often forgets to turn things of and what she was doing in the middle of something. These latter declines are due to a small stroke she has suffered a few months ago. Together with the loss for mental activities she lost part of her mobility (L5, see table 3.5.) such as reach and stretch capacity. Her vision (V8, see table 3.1.) is not perfect but she finds no problems in that area when wearing glasses. She has some hearing loss (H6, see table 3.4.) that is corrected by a hearing aid. She has difficulties with new technologies so intuitive controls are desired.

Edward, 44 years old, is a divorced father of two children. He has a successful career as an aeronautical engineer that on the downside takes away a lot of his time. His socio- economic status is fairly high and his socio-cultural status can be seen reflected in the design furniture and art around the house. He likes high-end design that gives something extra than the usual functions but usability is still high on his priority list. Functionality and aesthetics have to go hand in hand.

(24)

Not much spare time is available due to his career. When possible, the company from family is preferred even during cooking. The mother came to live in the house after suffering a stroke. The children are present in the house every other week and take upon different chores to help with the workload.

David is a teenager with a severe eye condition (V3, see table 3.1.). He can’t recognize a friend’s face at close distance. As he was born this way he learned from the beginning to adapt to his situation and is good at receiving information by sound and touch. In the house everything is kept in its place to make it easier for him.

Naomi is a good student who helps around the house when not studying. She understands the situation and takes her responsibilities to help her father take care of the household.

Understanding the needs and desires of the created personas will help take decisions that will benefit their necessities directly. This will make the product better and increase its usability for as many people as possible as they represent a mayor percentage of the population.

3.5. Customer Needs List

After analysing and numbering all the user capabilities it was made easier for the design team to select the needs to be able to comply with those capabilities. The needs list is used here to refer to a comprehensive and categorized list of the user needs that the design solution should satisfy (see table 3.6).

Table 3.6. Needs list.

Needs List

As … I need… So that…

a person with limited

visibility high contrast controls I can identify them

“ wide spaces I will not bump into the

sides

“ easily organized spaces I can find everything easily

“ big objects to recognize it better

“ voice controls I can hear and say the

commands a person with limited

thinking capabilities easy to use and intuitive

controls I can understand its use

“ safe to use objects I don’t run risks to harm a person with limited

dexterity large and easy to handle

controls I can use them without problems

“ power aids I don’t need to pick up

heavy objects

“ simple one-hand controls I don’t have to use both hands

a person with limited hear

ability visual alerts I can see commands and

alerts a person with limited

locomotion ability

everything to be at a reasonable height

I don’t need to bend down or stretch out

“ a compact kitchen I don’t need to move around

“ supportive structures I don’t have to stand on my own all the time

(25)

a wheelchair user adjusted heights I can reach everywhere

“ enough space I can easily move around

a daily user a pleasurable environment I like being in the kitchen 3.6. Customer Needs Specification

After a Customer Needs investigation, the following conclusions were obtained. It was determined which necessities have a higher level of priority compared to others. These necessities are listed below according to their relative importance:

o Safe to use in all conditions.

o Easy access to all functions for the user.

o Easy handling of controls and handles.

o Require minimum effort to take on different tasks.

o Support user physically.

o Intuitive controls of functions.

o Good visibility and access.

o Pleasurable environment.

The previous list of customer needs is expressed on a very general level. The specifications here where knowingly kept unspecified in detail to maintain a certain liberty in the posterior elaboration of the project and its solutions. This will be mentioned and discussed as being a weaker point of the project in the final conclusion and discussion chapter.

(26)

4. Concept Development

This chapter aims to describe the different stages of the concept generation. Creativity methods where used to generate many different solutions. Out of this stage ten concept ideas where developed and later analysed to be simplified into three specific concepts.

Once finalised the previous studies, a brainstorming was held. With the results of the brainstorming some sketches were made. In this step the different visions of each group member were expressed and later analysed and synthesized in various designs.

4.1. Idea Generation

For the idea generation a brainstorming session was conducted after the necessary information from potential users was collected.

4.1.1. Brainstorming

Brainstorming is the most commonly used idea generation method. It characterises itself by generating ideas according to the chosen topic and sharing these with a group to allow building further on each others’ ideas so a group member might come up with an improved version of a previous idea (Dym & Little, 2004). Brainstorming is a pure creational phase specifically done to generate a large number of ideas. It is a creational method that does not allow judgement of the ideas that are come up with to keep a creative mind set (Cross, 2004). The most fascinating attribute of brainstorming is that it is a method so simple that it can be applied by anyone for any problem that needs solving regardless of how big or small its importance is.

Project Group Brainstorming

It was decided to carry out the brainstorming after the interviews and observations. This way the brainstorming would be already focused on what the potential client requested and the ideas would be more relevant.

After having finalised the brainstorming and having categorised the ideas, two tables were made according to inclusive design needs and pleasure design needs. Table 4.1 shows the results for Pleasure design and table 4.2 shows results for Inclusive design.

Extra Brainstorming

In order to obtain extra ideas and a fresh view on the subject, a general user’s public was asked to give their ideas for an all-user friendly kitchen. The extra brainstorm was divided in three categories. The three categories were chosen to distinguish between different needs. Older people are not necessarily disabled but do have the need for extra help in the kitchen. The category of extra needs was chosen to support the pleasure design and come up with new ways to improve the feel in the kitchen concept. People were asked to give different functions for a kitchen for disabled people, older people and extra values for a kitchen. The people who were asked to come up with ideas are friends and relatives of the design team and all differ in age, gender, economic and social status, housing and education. These people were chosen for both their availability and demographic variation.

It was decided to do an extra brainstorming with people outside of the project to get a different perspective. Allowing people from outside the project contribute will give a different view and might produce new ideas. The following ideas came up during the extra brainstorming session:

(27)

Disabled people:

o Low counters for easier reach. Low cabinets.

o Separate fridge and freezer for easy access.

o Low writing board for shopping list.

o Voice directed lighting system.

o Carrousel cabinets for easy access.

o Platform to raise people to the desired height.

Older people:

o Electrical stove to avoid leaks and burns.

o Sliding cabinets for lower force.

o Small elevator to help raise grocery bags.

o Alarm button in case of emergency.

o Lid to cover stove surface in case of fire (only applicable with gas stoves).

o Light and accessible fire extinguisher.

o Foldable or extractable chair next to stove.

o Supporting bar around the kitchen.

Extra Values:

o Retractable socket tower that comes out of work surface.

o Plastic plants that also functions as refresher.

o Automated coffee and tea machine.

o Incorporated trash can.

o Resistant to cuts work surfaces.

Many functions that came up were the same as the project group’s own brainstorming.

This confirms the validity of the ideas and the importance of including them in an adapted kitchen. On the other hand this is a drawback as no real new possible solutions are produced.

(28)

Table 4.1. Pleasure Design Needs. Table 4.2 Inclusive Design Needs.

Form Square Round Oval Kidney L form

L form with centre isle U form

Space use Turn tables

Take advantage of volume Sliding and hiding cabinets

Furniture Chairs and Table Ironing Board Stove tap + Table Bodega

Beer tap

Dishwasher / Colander Trash bin / Recycler Multimedia TV screen / Digital photo

frame Computer

Music provider / Audio inlets

Speakers

Decoration Plants / Spices / Herbs Fish tank

Daily Use Comfortable chairs Different Heights Easy to clean

Japanese stove (metal or stone)

Extractor (for odors)

Form L form

U form Kidney

Either form with or without centre isle Space use Extractable cabinets

Carrousels Plate elevators Leg space under surfaces

Cooking Stove Type (safety) Induction Timer

Form and placement of buttons (easy to use and intuitive)

Sink Adjustable height

Open leg space Extensible tab from sink to stove Adaptability Different heights

Tab over stove Large knobs Lift track on wall Lift track on ceiling Usability Easy to clean

Avoid corners (dirt concentrations) Combine

kitchen/Dining room

4.1.2. Brainstorming Conclusions

As main conclusion it was found that in both brainstorming sections (for inclusive design and for pleasure design) many aspects repeat themselves. This can be seen as a helping point to choose priorities while designing. However in other aspects compromises have to be made in order to balance out both needs. The inclusive design aspects will be given an advantage in most cases when the need arises to make compromises. As an example, the form of the different kitchen concepts will be limited to the inclusive design options, as they are all included in the pleasure design. On the subject of space, it is an important aspect that affects both strategies in a fundamental manner. For inclusive design, space is a necessity while for pleasure design it is an added value that is very much appreciated. A variable height is another example of how combinable these strategies can be. In inclusive design it’s a way of helping users overcome barriers and make it user-friendly, but at the same time it is aesthetically more pleasing to have a working table or counter in different levels. In the following stage, which is sketching, saving space through storage will be taken into account from start to finish along the whole line. Multimedia and decoration will be treated with the lowest priority but finally included for the added value.

Development and design of a kitchen solution using Inclusive and Pleasure Design.