The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones of Design for Disability

Abstract

This paper sets out to-for the first time-critically review the history of Inclusive Design on two distinct levels, i.e. the narratives that shape it and the historical milestones which contribute to its evolution. Through an illustrative review of literature and object ethnography, two sets of timelines are outlined. First, a milestone timeline helps establish the chronological evolution of Inclusive Design based on historical milestones and sociocultural perspectives. Second, a narrative timeline helps uncover the underlying narratives around matters of disability, design and inclusivity, and how they evolved. This first timeline review of narratives and milestones; a) identifies historical and emerging shifts in direction and mentality; b) offers granular as well as holistic views; and c) poses major questions onto Inclusive Design as a field in need of more critically reflective approaches-both conceptually and in practice.

Full text

1
The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline
Review of Narratives and Milestones of Design for
Disability
Luka Kille-Speckter a, Farnaz Nickpour a
a University of Liverpool
*Corresponding author email: luka.kille-speckter@liverpool.ac.uk
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.690
Abstract: This paper sets out to - for the first time - critically review the history of
Inclusive Design on two distinct levels, i.e. the narratives that shape it and the
historical milestones which contribute to its evolution. Through an illustrative
review of literature and object ethnography, two sets of timelines are outlined.
First, a milestone timeline helps establish the chronological evolution of Inclusive
Design based on historical milestones and sociocultural perspectives. Second,
a narrative timeline helps uncover the underlying narratives around matters of
disability, design and inclusivity, and how they evolved. This first timeline review
of narratives and milestones; a) identifies historical and emerging shifts in
direction and mentality; b) offers granular as well as holistic views; and c) poses
major questions onto Inclusive Design as a field in need of more critically
reflective approaches - both conceptually and in practice.
Keywords: Inclusive Design history; ‘objects of disability’; disability narratives;
milestone timeline
1. Introduction
1.1 Looking back to go forward: The landscape of historically reflective
work on Inclusive Design and Objects of Disability
“Study the past if you would define the future” - Confucius
History is a commonly understood resource that helps contextualise and
comprehend past behaviours and mentalities as well as the evolution of present-day
concepts. Furthermore, it offers a longitudinal glance and a critical oversight at
patterns and narratives and how they have progressed or regressed - allowing us to
engage, speculate and reimagine the future. It is therefore an imperative to examine
the historical evolution of a field, in order to better understand and contextualise it,
and more effectively contribute to realising its potential.

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
2
Inclusive design is a field in need of such a review as there are currently very little
critically reflective accounts of its origin, evolution and history. An illustrative review
of literature has revealed that in fact there appears to be only one academic paper
dedicated to the History of Inclusive Design within the UK (Coleman, 2013) and other
accounts look only at the evolution of a specific field such as inclusive paediatric
mobility design (O'Sullivan and Nickpour, 2020), specific design object (Pullin,2007)
or focus on contemporary history only. The lack of diversity in perspectives, critical
reflections, and reviews of the field as a whole, highlights an urgent necessity for a
critically reflective review of the history and evolution of Inclusive Design as a field -
both conceptually and in practice.
In ‘History of Inclusive Design in the UK’ (2013), Coleman outlines the milestones of
Inclusive Design from the perspective of the Royal College of Art, the birthplace of
the term ‘Inclusive Design’. Starting with the coining of the term in 1994, this account
focuses almost exclusively on contributions from the College. Dong (2020) also
engages with the contemporary history of Inclusive Design through suggesting four
high level stages starting in the 1990s and spanning across three decades. These
include Products; Interface & Interactions; Experience & Service; and Systems.
Whilst not exactly intended to be historical work specifically, Design Meets Disability
(Pullin, 2007), Building Access (Hamraie,2017), Accessible America (Williamson,
2019), Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society (Guffey, 2017) and
Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population (Clarkson et al., 2003) all offer
valuable historical insights into dynamics of disability and design throughout time.
However, these historical reflections are mostly specific and not within the context of
an overall historical timeline.
Similarly, ‘Design Histories: Disability Made Modern’ (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
provides a critical and detailed account of disabled individuals' perspective in a
history of “Objects of disability”. Interestingly, whilst not focused on Inclusive Design
specifically, it helps outline some less visible perspectives relevant to the history and
evolution of Inclusive Design.
Whilst these references help shed light on parts of the wider picture of the evolution
of Inclusive Design, there does not seem to be an account that encompasses all
criteria i.e. being a critically reflective historical account of the evolution of Inclusive
Design/design for inclusion; being representative of voices from within as well as
outside the field; incorporating lived experience accounts and contributions;
capturing the underlying societal or disciplinary narratives as well as specific
historical milestones; and accounting for the socio-technological and cultural
contexts and attitudes towards disability. This paper is a first attempt at addressing
what is currently missing in terms of a critical historical review of Inclusive Design.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
3
1.3 Alluding to neighbouring concepts; A comparison of contexts
Design Council (2008) defines Inclusive Design as “neither a new genre of design,
nor a separate specialism.” But “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.”
Alongside Inclusive Design, Design for All in Europe and Universal Design in the US,
have evolved around two major axes:
1. The ever-growing ageing population as well as growing visibility of integration
2. Consideration for users with needs within the mainstream society
However, Inclusive Design differentiates itself in that it is based on “the concept of
design exclusion as a quantifiable aspect of products and services” (Clarkson and
Coleman, 2015). In doing so, Inclusive Design acknowledges that there is no such
thing as a one size fits all approach that is inclusive to everyone.
Additional to the core concepts outlined above, further branches of the EDI-centred
design fields have evolved which are, though lesser known, nonetheless noteworthy.
‘Kyoyo-hin (Kyoyohin) Design’, which originated from the word “commonly usable” in
Japanese, evolved as a Japanese equivalent to Universal Design in 1999, as
outlined in a 2001 White Paper published by the Kyoyo-hin Foundation. ‘Design for
More’ (Herssens, 2011) sets itself apart from existing notions by levelling otherwise
idealistic aims to more realistic expectations and aims to highlight the “iterative
nature of an inclusive design progress” (Herssens, 2011). In this paper will use the
term Inclusive Design predominantly, though the content might equally apply to other
relevant EDI-centred design approaches as outlined above.
2. Why a critical historical review of Inclusive Design
2.1 Why a historical milestone timeline
It is important to acknowledge that the practice of Inclusive Design merely marks one
turning point in the history of design for disability and that precursors of the practice
may have existed in various forms before the term was officially coined in 1994.
Milestones predating the official identification of Inclusive Design as a field (1994),
nevertheless mark important shifts in both technical innovation as well as social
understanding of disability. These milestones have informed the foundations for
Inclusive Design as we know it today and are therefore worth understanding.
If Inclusive Design is believed to have started in 1994, it is consequently not
surprising that narratives within existing historical accounts are also limited to the
perspective of key figures within Inclusive Design. Arguably, a critically reflective
review would represent a more diverse range of voices and perspectives. Critical

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
4
Disability Studies as a reflective field, might lend interesting additional perspectives
such as those of lived-experience individuals for instance.
2.2 Why a narrative timeline
Narratives are commonly understood to reflect associated meaning and stories of an
individual's experience. The study of narratives, also known as narratology, is a field
of study within the humanities and social sciences, focussing on principles, patterns
and practices of narrative representation (Meister, 2011).
“Narratives operate as an instrument of mind in the construction of reality and the
way we perceive problems; they provide perspective or a point of view” (Bruner,
1991).
As such, elements of narratology, such as object ethnography, are used as a means
of gaining insights into the cultural, social and economic landscape of a given time,
place and group particularly relevant to cultural perceptions and collective realities.
Narratives of disability are a reflection of what it means to be disabled in a particular
socio-economic time and place and how disability is viewed by the culture at large
i.e. ‘societal’ narratives, by key stakeholders and decision makers i.e. ‘disciplinary’
narratives, and by lived experience experts i.e. ‘experiential’ narratives (O’Sullivan
and Nickpour, 2022).
Consequently, there is strong potential for use of narrative analysis within the
practice of Inclusive Design, as it is suggested to “encourage a deeply humanised
design process by nurturing empathy, enhancing multi-sensory conceptualisation
and visualisation, and facilitating holistic designing” (Danko, 2006, p.1). Hence, a
narrative review of design and disability - beyond a mere historical milestone review -
proves both significant and essential.
3. Aims & approach to critical historical review of Inclusive
Design
3.1 Research Questions
As established, a mixed method approach analysing a combination of milestones
and narratives within Inclusive Design is imperative. Hence, adopting a critical
historical lens, this paper aims to address two key Research Questions (RQ):
● RQ1: What is the milestone timeline of Inclusive Design?
● RQ2: What is the narrative timeline of Inclusive Design?
Table 1 outlines the research objectives, research questions and methods of enquiry
for this paper.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
5
Table 1 Research objectives, questions and methods
Objective
Research Question
Methods
Understanding the
chronological evolution of
Inclusive Design based on
historical milestones
1. What is the milestone
timeline of Inclusive
Design?
Historical timeline
Object ethnography
Understanding the evolution of
narratives around Inclusive/
Design and disability
2. What is the narrative
timeline of Inclusive
Design?
Object ethnography
3.2 Methodology & methods
Two distinct methods are adopted in order to ensure both RQ1 and RQ2 are
thoroughly addressed. These are briefly outlined and discussed.
[RQ1] Historical milestone timeline; Cultural, social and economic milestones
and their relevance to the evolution of Inclusive Design
An illustrative literature review on the history of Inclusive Design was conducted in
order to outline the key milestones within the field. To correlate this to the socio-
economic landscape of the given time, these milestones were contextualised in
relation to historical events, moments and eras.
Secondary data collection was used as the main source of input. Key references
from within the field of Inclusive Design and outside the field, including disability
history and narratology, were used in order to collate and converge multiple points of
historical reference from various sources into a single historical timeline.
Inclusion Criteria
The search scope covered a combination of EDI-centred design terms (Inclusive
Design, Universal Design, Design For All) and history terms (including but not limited
to timeline, milestones, history, etc.). The inclusion criteria for search results was:
1. Scope of document (reflected by occurring in title, abstract or keywords)
including ‘design terms’ AND ‘history terms’.
2. Not being about specific practice within design or specific object.
[RQ 2] Object ethnography: Objects as agents of disability narratives
As Anne-Marie Willis, the design theorist describes, “the double movement of
ontological designing” or how “we design our world, while our world acts back on us

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
6
and designs us” (Willis, 2006), outlines the value of analysing objects of our past and
present.
Object ethnography therefore is considered one most appropriate method for this
purpose, in conjunction with the analysis of narratives. In combination, this should
outline a holistic timeline of the evolution of disability narratives and within this, the
evolution of Inclusive Design as a field of practice. Specifically, using “objects of
disability” (Guffey and Williamson, 2020) is a method used for mapping disability
narratives and to investigate the existence of any narratives of design objects which
otherwise may be overlooked. The selection of events on the narrative timeline
(Figure 2) was based on examples which supported the evolving narrative patterns.
4. Findings
In this section, key findings are presented according to RQ1 and RQ2, i.e. the
historical milestone timeline and the narrative timeline.
4.1 Historical milestones timeline of Inclusive Design
Whilst the milestones prior to No. 29 (‘Inclusive Design’ term, R. Coleman, 1994) are
not strictly considered ‘Inclusive Design’, they are however milestones which
provided the foundations for Inclusive Design and were therefore included in this
timeline. In total, 34 milestones were outlined (Figure 1). This is a first illustrative list
of key milestones based on a scoping review of secondary data within the fields of
Inclusive Design, Critical Disability Studies, Disability History and Western History of
the Modern Era, and should not be treated as an exhaustive list.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
7

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
8
No.
Year
Milestone
1
1794
George Hepplewhite picturedthe adjustable “gouty stool” and easy chair designed to “comfort the
afflicted” (Belolan, 2020)
2
1853
The A.A. Marks Company was founded by Amasa Abraham Marks, becoming one of the most
renowned artificial limb manufacturers in NYC (Liffers, 2020)
3
1885
The story of Andrew Gawley, an example of the merging of users and their ‘objects of disability’
(Virdi, 2020)
4
1897
600 British “deaf-mutes” signed a petition to Queen Victoria urging to extend the “blessings of
civilization and religion” to them as well (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
5
1907/8
Isthmian Canal Commissions began providing artificial limbs for those injured in the course of their
duties (Liffers, 2020)
6
1905-
1921
Panama Canal, America’s imperial imposition did not stop at infrastructure and injury and articles
describe its cost “in human legs” (Liffers, 2020)
7
1911
A.A. Marks Company launched a new line of artificial limbs promising adaptability to various
amputations and the successful social reintegration of wearers (Ott 2002)
8
1920
Lillian Gilbreath and husband Frank developed a prototype of a typewriter that required only one
arm to operate for amputee veterans of the First World War (Gotcher, 1989)
9
1933
Everest & Jennings launched portable, foldable wheelchairs and spearheaded many further
wheelchair innovations (Guffey, 2017)
10
1941
Canes were completely absent from the Gorham Company catalogue before filled with 108 pages
with different cane designs (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
11
1947
Patent application for ice-grip of canes and crutches (rubber or similar material covering the lower
end of the tips (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
12
1945
Le Corbusier’s The Modulor as guides for the design of buildings and products (Carpentier and
Lambert, 2014)
13
1947
Congress formed the President’s Committee on Employment of the handicapped laying the
foundation for radical approach towards disability and design development (Guffey and Williamson,
2020)
14
1955
Henry Dreyfuss’s Measure of Man (Carpentier and Lambert, 2014)
15
1961
American Standard Specifications was an industry-led effort amounting to recommendations for
disability (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
16
1962
Open Het Dorp, mass television round-the-clock broadcast shaped cultural beliefs about disability
(Dorp, 2020)
17
1963
Designing for the Disabled by Selwyn Goldsmith (Coleman, 2013)
18
1966
IT the first site for NTID technical programs and a newly built campus (Whitney, 2020)
19
1967
Goldsmith revised the second edition of Designing for the Disabled, rethinking specifications as well
as the book’s ethos, criticising the American Standard (Coleman, 2013)
20
1968
National Technical Institute for the Deaf founded under a US government mandate with sound-and
sight-conscious spaces represented to its founders (Whitney, 2020)

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
9
21
1971
‘Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change’ challenging the old approach of
design (Papanek, 2011)
22
1975
Short story by Finkelstein depicting an “upside down world”, a community organised for and run by
wheelchair users (Finkelstein, 1988)
23
1978
The Adaptive Environments Centre at Boston, established by Elaine Ostroff and Cora Beth Abel
(Myerson, 2012)
24
1986
New Design for Old, Victoria and Albert Museum by Manley (Coleman, 2013)
25
1989
Centre for Accessible Housing at North Carolina State University established by Mace (Coleman,
2013)
26
1989
Helen Hamlyn Foundation due to implications of population ageing identified by Laslett (Coleman,
2013)
27
1992
Conference organised jointly by the Ergonomics Society and DesignAge (Coleman, 2013)
28
1993
European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations by the European Commission
(EC) (Coleman, 2013)
29
1994
‘Inclusive Design’ was coined by Roger Colemen (Coleman, 2013)
30
1994
European Network on Design and Ageing (DAN), co-ordinated by DesignAge (Coleman, 2013)
31
1994
Heart Building Law recommended accessibility features in public buildings (Guffey and Williamson,
2020)
32
1995
Ronald Mace coined the term ‘Universal Design’ to represent an entire philosophy of design rather
than just government regulations (Coleman, 2013)
33
1997
The work of Mace and Ostroff in the US led directly to the concept of Universal Design (Coleman,
2013)
34
1999
‘Kyoyo Design’/ Kyoyo-hin Foundation practising Japanese equivalent of ‘Universal Design’
(Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
Figure 1 A milestone timeline of the evolution of Inclusive Design

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
10
4.2 Narrative timeline: Objects as agents of disability narratives
Figure 2 outlines a timeline of 28 disability narratives and models and their evolution.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
11
No.
Year
Narrative milestones
1
1794
George Hepplewhite picturedthe adjustable “gouty stool” and easy chair designed to “comfort the
afflicted” (Belolan, 2020)
2
1870s
Medical Model of Disability
3
1885
The story of Andrew Gawley, an example of the merging of users and their objects of disability
(Virdi, 2020)
4
1897
600 British “deaf-mutes” signed a petition to Queen Victoria urging to extend the “blessings of
civilization and religion” to them as well (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
5
1911
A.A. Marks Company launched a new line of artificial limbs promising adaptability to various
amputations and the successful social reintegration of wearers (Ott 2002)
6
1941
Canes were completely absent from the Gorham Company catalogue before being filled with
108 pages with different cane designs (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
7
1960s
Disability Rights Movements (starting point)
8
1961
American Standard Specifications was an industry-led effort amounting to recommendations for
disability (Coleman,2013)
9
1962
Open Het Dorp, mass television round-the-clock broadcast shaped cultural beliefs about
disability (Dorp, 2020)
10
1963
Designing for the Disabled by Selwyn Goldsmith (Coleman, 2013)
11
1967
Goldsmith revised the second edition of Designing for the Disabled, rethinking specifications as
well as the book’s ethos, criticising the American Standard (Coleman,2013)
12
1971
‘Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change’ challenging the old approach of
design (Papanek, 2011)
13
1975
Short story by Finkelstein depicting an “upside down world”, a community organised for and run
by wheelchair users (Finkelstein, 1988)
14
1980s
Social Model of Disability
15
1980s
Individual-Environment Model of Disability (World Health Organisation/ WHO)
16
1986
New Design for Old, Victoria and Albert Museum by Manley (Coleman,2013)
17
1993
European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations by the European
Commission (EC) (Coleman,2013)
18
1994
Inclusive Design 1.0 Products (Dong, 2020)
19
2004
Inclusive Design 2.0 Interface Interaction (Dong, 2020)
20
2007
Design Meets Disability (book) (Pullin, 2007)
21
2014
Inclusive Design 3.0 Experience Service (Dong, 2020)
22
2011
‘Design For More’ (Hendersen, 2011)
23
2017
Design Justice (Fair by Design, Just Design, etc.) (Heylighen,2017)

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
12
24
2018
Mismatch (book) (Holmes, 2018)
25
2020
‘Psychosocial Inclusion’ (Nickpour,2020)
26
2020
‘Design Model of Disability’ (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
27
2020
What Can a Body Do? (book) (Hendren, 2020)
28
2024
Inclusive Design 4.0 System (Dong, 2020)
Figure 2 A timeline of disability narratives and models of disability
21 Models of Disability including some lesser known models are outlined in Table 2.
Table 2 An overview of Models of Disability (Shades of Noir, 2021)
Disability Model
Language keywords
Details
The Religious Model of
Disability
Sin, shame, act of god, divine
punishment
Oldest model of disability, punishment by God(s)
The Moral Model of
Disability
Sim, moral, spiritual, belief
Morally responsible for their own disability (mid
1800)
The Eugenic Model of
Disability
normal/abnormal, fit/unfit,
undeserving, inferior
Theory of eugenics, being fit or unfit physically
The Biomedical Model of
Disability
Biology, impairment
Dominant in the western World, focus on
biological factors only
The Biopsychosocial
Model of Disability
Undeserving, unwilling, lazy
Developed by private health insurance in US
and UK, responsibility on disabled person
The Medical Model of
Disability
Cure, treatment, disease, care
Disease or trauma to be cured
The Professional Model of
Disability
Impairment, limitation,
improvement, treatment,
patient
Related to medical model, perspective of experts
The Charity Model of
Disability
Tragedy, itty, shame, victim
Disabled people as victims of circumstance
The Economic Model of
Disability
Socio-economic, impairment,
assessment, productivity,
(un)employment
Personas inability to work/ being a productive
member of society
The Identity Model of
Disability
Minority, disability as identity,
membership
Disability as a positive identity
The Social Model of
Disability
Social construct, phenomenon,
integration, rehabilitation
Phenomenon which is socially created
The Affirmation Model of
Disability
Normalisation,
deinstitutionalization, disability
pride, social identity,
impairment, arts, non-tragic,
diversity
Critique of the charity/tragedy model, disability
as an everyday occurrence which is neither
negative nor positive

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
13
The Minority Model of
Disability
Experience, normalisation,
social barriers, imposed,
impaired
Sociopolitical,social barriers and negative
attitudes imposed on individuals
The Market Model of
Disability
Identity minority, economic,
user, market, empower
Minority rights and consumerist model,
diasabled people as stakeholders and
consumers
The New Radical Model of
Disability
Disabled person, rights,
disability
justice,intersectionality, social
justice, crip, mad (reclaimed)
Does Not distinguish between impairment and
disability
The Spectrum Model of
Disability
Mankind, function, reduction,
operation, disability
Disability on a sensory spectrum of humankind
The Relational Model of
Disability
Built environment,
normalisation, diversity,
support, deinstitutionalization
Normalising access and social inclusion
The Socially Adopted
Model of Disability
Ableism, environment,
limitations, society
Limitations of able-bodied society, social barriers
The Empowering Model of
Disability
Empower, individual, choice,
treatment
Professionals as service providers
The Legitimacy Model of
Disability
Value-based,membership,
collaboration
Disability as a value based determination
The Human Rights Model
of Disability
Human rights, social
justice,independence, voices,
discourse, disrcrimination
Human rights based and anti-discrimination
(1980s)
In addition to the 21 Models of Disability outlined in Table 2 (Shades of Noir
Journals, 2021), two additional models of disability are also identified.
1. The Individual-Environment Model of Disability outlined by the WHO in 1980,
alongside the Social Model of Disability
2. The Design Model of Disability (Guffey and Williamson, 2020)
Based on the findings from Figure 2 and Table 2, Table 3 outlines and summarises
dominant narratives and key concepts and voices behind them in a chronological
order and in relation to the historic cultural climate of the given time period.

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
14
Table 3 Dominant narratives and key concepts and voices behind them in a
chronological order
Key
Concept
Historical
Relevance
Dominant
Narrative
Key
Voices
Era
Year
Capability &
Individualis
m
Pragmatism,
Status, Agency
Designers and
Craftsmen, End
user
Pre
Industrial
era
> 1760
Capitalism &
Consumeris
m
WW 1&2,
Panama Canal
Pathology,
Normativism,
Demand
Medicine,
Materials &
manufacture
Industrial
Revolution
1760-
1840
Access &
Inclusion
Americans With
Disabilities Act
and UK/ EU
equivalent
Accessibility,
Independence,
Rights, Welfare
Expert users,
Policies, Design
& Engineering
Technologic
al
Revolution
1870-
1920/
1940-
1970
Diversity &
Personalisat
ion
Social Justice
movements e.g.
BLM
EDI,
Personalisatio,
Social justice
Government &
Corporates,
Digital tech,
Advanced
manufacturing,
Disability studies
Information
Age
1970<
Until
today
5.Discussion
5.1 Reflections on the Historical Timeline of Inclusive Design
A review of key findings from the historical timeline, raises some key questions in
regards to the origins, authorship and context of Inclusive Design.
The origin and starting point of Inclusive Design?
One major question in the historical timeline of Inclusive Design, is the starting point
of the timeline and the origin of it.
Inclusive design came into view in the mid 1990s, as a synergy of design, social
integration and equality, which at large could be attributed to social justice
movements. These originated in the 1960s, seeking to challenge existing
stereotypes about age, disability and equal treatment (Clarkson and Coleman,
2015). Laslett, a predominant scholar in the field of politics and history of social
structure, classified a shift towards an ageing population which in turn inspired an
exhibition called New Design for Old, spearheaded by former Royal College of Art
design graduate Helen Hamlyn. The exhibition explored emerging visions of what an
age-friendly future may look like, shifting existing perceptions of dependency and
assistive aids towards desirable domestic devices (Clarkson and Coleman, 2015).

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
15
Whilst this illustrative review on the history of Inclusive Design summarises the
events directly related to the field of Inclusive Design as we know it today, it
overlooks the complexity of factors which are involved in shaping movements and
fields of research and practice such as Inclusive Design. It is not as simple as
pinpointing a specific date in which it started; much like historic events and
occurrences, it develops over time and its progress is not always one that is linear.
As much as there are several Industrial Revolutions according to historians, one
might also surmise that there are many periods of time and events that mark the
dawn of Inclusive Design and the timeline we have created will only scratch the
surface of such events. We should therefore ask, what the evolution of Inclusive
Design is, rather than simply its historical milestones.
The authorship and voices in Inclusive Design: Tinkerers, hackers and design
A review of historical timeline of Inclusive Design, raises questions around its
authorship and leading voices; who records and therefore owns the history of
Inclusive Design and from whose viewpoint/s is this evolution narrated? Does it
acknowledge and record the point of view and contributions of lived experience
experts and beneficiaries of Inclusive Design - either as individuals or collectives -
or is it seen and recorded from a disciplinary expert perspective, and by stakeholders
of Inclusive Design?
History will always hold the bias of those who have recorded it. In terms of Inclusive
Design, this offers an explanation as to why we consider the timeline of Inclusive
Design to start with the coining of the term. Individual people have less influence and
means to contribute to written accounts of history and are more likely to be
overlooked, no matter what role or impact they may have had. It is therefore
important to look for those stories which may have been overlooked and
acknowledge that historic accounts will never be able to capture the full complexity of
the present.
There is a long history of humans finding inventive ways of designing assistive
devices for a variety of disabilities, such as prosthetics and wheelchairs in particular
(Coleman et al., 2003; pp. 34). Andrew Gawley is a well-known example of the active
role of invention, implementation and identity of a disabled person and their “object
of disability”(Virdi, 2020). When Gawley lost both upper limbs in 1885 due to an
accident at his workplace, the local sawmill, he was confronted with the struggle of
prosthetics designed for individuals who still had the use of one hand. This
frustration fuelled Gawley’s need to invent a better alternative to enable better
functionality and ability for self-sufficiency. In league with his blind father and the
local blacksmith he succeeded in creating such a prosthetic (Figure 3); for which he
later became famous and was known as ‘The Man with Steel Hands’ (Virdi, 2020).
This story provides a rarely well-documented example of how a lack of industry of

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
16
assistive devices meant disabled people taking charge of their own needs and
designing better alternatives themselves.
Figure 3 Andrew Gawley’s self designed prosthetics
In the first two decades of the 21st century, due to advances in rapid manufacturing,
social product development and demand for customisation of design objects, the
phenomena of individuals taking ownership of customising objects for their unique
needs and preferences is - interestingly - having another historical resurge. This is in
line with the DIY culture being embraced by individuals as well as also designers,
designing for/by/with disability. Utilising this method of DIY inclusive design are
products such as the “D.I.Y Prosthetic Manual” (Riny, 2019) which aims to provide
tools for making prosthetics out of recycled bicycle parts for those without reliable
access to healthcare.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
17
Figure 4 D.I.Y Prosthetic Manual, instructions for DIY prosthetics using bike parts
Many designers appreciate the creativity of adjustments to mundane objects done
out of pure need by individual users. However, the motivations by the users do not
always align with those of marketeers and decision makers (O’Sullivan and
Nickpour, 2020). Furthermore, whether designs have been informed through
participatory design methods or not, it is the designers, engineers, marketeers and
decision makers at large, who finalise the selection of features (O’Sullivan and
Nickpour, 2020).
Going forward therefore, it is imperative to search and record accounts from a more
diverse range of individuals. While the may not seem significant individually, as a
collection they tell a story of our present and our future past.
The dynamic societal context of Inclusive Design
The attitudes towards Inclusive Design, as well as its areas of application, its
prominence and its pace of progress throughout different eras, have been
significantly influenced if not defined by the dynamic societal context and the overall
socio-cultural-economic landscape in which it has existed. Some key historical
milestones for Inclusive Design - initiated through major societal shifts and events -
are discussed here.
Whilst the preindustrial era ending in 1760 with the Industrial Revolution, embraced
the customisation of disability objects for ease of use and often also prestige and
status, this significantly changed in the coming centuries (18th century onwards)
when disability was seen as a bodily pathology to be reversed or fixed and therefore
assistive devices of any kind were portrayed as a way to address disability (Guffey
and Williamson, 2020). This shift seems to be parallelly aligned with the perspectives
of the medical model of disability and by twentieth century, almost every disability
would have been matched with one or more design solutions (Guffey and
Williamson, 2020).

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
18
Modernism marks a phase within design history, showcasing a strong eugenic
agenda to fix anything atypical or “weak” into bodily ideals. Well-known designers
such as LeCorbusier in The Modulor and Henry Dreyfuss in The Measure of Man,
designed statistically informed, normative graphs of the human body to base the
design of products and environments on (Carpentier and Lambert, 2014). In a sense,
this could be viewed as the precursor to modern day design personas, which equally
focus on the ‘average’ user, normative bodies and constructed ideas of the end user.
Beyond this, the industrial revolution marks a great cause of disablement due to
unsafe working conditions in factories, coal mines and constructions such as the
Panama Canal, which is believed to have costed a large amount not just financially
but also in human arms and legs (Liffers, 2020). Overall, work injuries were a
common occurrence, often due to lack of adequate training, and humans being
viewed as replaceable (Guffey and Williamson, 2020).
Similarly, the aftermath of both World War I & II, having produced many disabled
veterans, spurred the innovation of assistive devices and design solutions in the
West. Henry Dreyfuss, for instance, opened his doors to disabled veterans of the
Second World War. Similarly Lillian Gilbreath and her husband Frank, who had
previously become well known for time-motion efficiency within factories, had
launched a typewriter that required only one arm to be operated (Gotcher, 1989).
The efforts in the post-war era to facilitate more accessible designs to accommodate
large numbers of disabled veterans in the West, marks a shift which in some ways
continues until this day. This shift emphasised on independence and teaching people
to live with their disabilities, in many ways changing the overall narrative of disability
itself in the context of Western society, moving towards being more accepting of
diversity (Guffey and Williamson, 2020). It was the efforts to support those injured
during the war as well as a steadily growing enthusiasm for emerging technologies
which led many countries to push for high tech prosthetic limbs. Soon after
governments started generating new accessibility standards, like disabled parking
spaces and ramps. In the twentieth century, the history of disability is largely made
up of policies and regulations addressing rehabilitation, social welfare and civil rights,
in which design is seen as an agent and a medium for social change
(Williamson,2017).
A closer look at some selected historical milestones and how they have shaped and
evolved Inclusive Design, highlights the importance of societal context and the
interconnected nature of evolution of disciplines and the overall socio-economic
landscape. For example, how would design for disability have paced and evolved,
had there not been two World Wars, a significant rise in number of disabled adults
and increased t demand for accessible products? Or similarly, would Disability
Rights movements in the 60s have occurred if there hadn't been a wider climate
leading to a variety of civil rights movements?

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
19
5.2 Reflections on the Narrative Timeline of Inclusive Design
Tinkerers, hackers and designers; The value of everyday objects
There is much historical evidence of ostentatious yet highly practical objects in the
early modern era (approx. 1450-1800). These demonstrate overlooked crafting
techniques and customisations that cater to specific individuals' needs whilst not
compromising on style and comfort of use (Guffey and Williamson, 2020). Besides
the objects themselves, hand-crafted decorations, such as crochet blankets,
embroidered pillows or trinkets on the spokes of the wheels, also suggest a highly
personalised relation between the individual and the object, reflecting a sense of
acceptance and inclusion of these objects by their users within their environment
(Guffey and Williamson, 2020).
On the other hand, someone's ability to look well-groomed and to contribute to their
families and communities, and their overall reputation, was regarded as very
important within the preindustrial era (ending with the Industrial Revolution in 1760),
which is most likely the reason for objects which not only aid or comfort the user but
also attempt to conceal a person's disability. As such it was common for sufferers of
gout to wear heatones, objects specifically designed for ease of mobility as well as
concealment of swollen gouty lower limbs (Klein and Bell,1986). Other records show
wheelchairs completely covered by fabric in order to resemble a library chair and
conceal the ‘object of disability’ (Guffey and Williamson, 2020).
Whilst there are accounts reflecting both - the self-empowered tinkerers and
hackers, as well as those aiming to conceal any presence of disability - it is generally
understood that most people in the pre-industrialisation period were too occupied
living their lives to be concerned with social and cultural stigma (Ott, 2002).
With the Industrial Revolution, attitudes towards disability and objects of disability
shifted with the rise of the medical model of disability. The walking cane poses an
interesting case study for changing narratives on disability, as their narrative shifts
from fashion accessoire and status symbol to mobility support and assistive device
(Guffey and Williamson, 2020). Disability was regarded as a physiological
malfunction and problem to be addressed by a variety of treatments and objects,
incorporating evolving technologies at the time. This enthusiasm for disabilities being
fixed - particularly through advanced technology - is still reflected nowadays in
phenomena such as techno-ableism.
Multiplicity of models and narratives of disability
The social model of disability suggests that often the social barriers faced by
disabled individuals outweigh those caused by their physical limitations
(Shakespeare, 2013). This presented a stark contrast to the medical model of
disability, which was popularised in the 19th century, regarding disability as an
“individual bodily pathology to be fixed, cured or eliminated” (Guffey and Williamson,

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
20
2020). With the emergence of the Disability Rights movement in the 1960s, the
social model of disability grew roots and informed many policies and standards
remaining until this day. Examples such as the development of the folding
wheelchair as we know it today, was strongly shaped by policies introduced after the
Second World War, changing the narrative from ‘a tool for client transportation’ to ‘an
object which facilitates individual independence and mobility’ (Guffey and
Williamson, 2020).
Users who were unsatisfied with products such as wheelchairs not meeting their
needs, pushed for more inclusive products or otherwise altered the objects
themselves. This led to many innovations such as the “Quickie” wheelchair by
Marilyn Hamilton (1979) as well as many other models regarded as excellent
examples of user-driven innovation and Inclusive Design (Guffey and Williamson,
2020). Growing numbers of empowered users demand better design solutions and
with this, emerges the idea of the design model of disability. Instead of the previous
two models of disability, the design model argues that disability only exists within the
context of a designed space, which when it fails, leads to an individual being
disabled by design.
Emerging design philosophies and evolving narratives of ‘disability objects’
As described in Figure 2, narratives of disability directly correlate with the models of
disability (medical, social, design, etc.). The notion of disability being a concept only
relevant within a given context/environment is gaining traction - explored in works
such as ‘What Can A Body Do?’ (Hendren,2020). This perspective on disability is by
no means a new one and has been expressed in “upside down world” by Finkelstein
(1988), but seems increasingly relevant in contemporary culture.
In tandem with evolving concepts such as Design for More, some scholars in the
Inclusive Design field have aimed to re-evaluate its positioning and the reality of
some of its fairly aspirational notions (Herssens, 2011). This is reflected in critical
work around Fair by Design (Bianchin and Heylighen,2017) and Just Design
(Bianchin and Heylighen, 2018).
This raises questions around the emerging narratives of Inclusive Design and
whether more researchers and practitioners within the field would seek to re-
evaluate its principles and premises and critically reflect on its future directions.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
21
6. Limitations
This paper should be considered as a first attempt at outlining historical milestone
and narrative timelines for Inclusive Design as a field. As such, the current resulting
timelines should be treated as work-in-progress and evolving versions which need
improvement in terms of thoroughness, rigour and criticality of scope and analysis,
and do not fully represent the field. The first version of timelines aims to initiate
conversations within and outside the discipline, and capture critical feedback and
input for further iterations.
Given the existing historical accounts of Inclusive Design focus on contemporary
history, this review focuses on the events leading up to the dawn of Inclusive Design
in 1994 and its early stages. The timeline of Inclusive Design Milestones therefore
ends in 1999 with the EDI-centred practice of ‘Kyoyo-Hin’ Design developing in
Japan.
Furthermore, this paper engages with history of Inclusive Design from a
predominantly Western and Euro-centric perspective and may therefore miss
historical events and narratives in the Global South as well as other countries and
regions. One example would be the Vietnam War and its major contribution to
disability rights movements, particularly in the US and hence Universal Design
history.
Due to the limited amount of written work dedicated to the history of Inclusive
Design, primary data collection assisted by experts in the field of Inclusive Design as
well as the history of disability, could considerably enhance the thoroughness and
rich ness of the historical timelines.
Accounts detailing the history of individual design objects as well as their users’
experiences is more widely represented. This poses the question around selection of
objects to include in the narrative timeline of Inclusive Design. In this paper,
examples were selected which best informed the narrative timeline of Inclusive
Design, however this might not be considered extensive enough to reflect the full
spectrum of disability narratives at a given time.
7. Conclusion & Recommendations
This paper set out to critically review the history of Inclusive Design on two distinct
levels, i.e. the narratives that shape it and the historical milestones which contribute
to its evolution. Through an illustrative review of literature and object ethnography,
two sets of timelines were outlined. First, a milestone timeline helped establish the
chronological evolution of Inclusive Design based on historical milestones and
sociocultural perspectives. Second, a narrative timeline helped uncover the

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
22
underlying narratives around matters of disability, design, and inclusivity, and how
they evolved.
This first timeline review of narratives and milestones; a) identifies and
contextualises historical and emerging shifts in the direction and mentality; b) offers
granular as well as holistic views over the field; and c) poses major questions onto
Inclusive Design as a field in need of more critically reflective approaches.
The timeline of the evolution of Inclusive Design in Figure 1 highlights the complexity
and interconnectedness of historical contexts and events and that consequently
there is not one fixed ‘starting point’ to the history and evolution of Inclusive Design.
Instead, it is a process still ongoing in the present day.
The dominant narratives and key concepts and voices in Table 2, highlight major
shifts in mentality and approach to Inclusive Design and design and disability in a
chorological order. Seen both as potential progresses and regresses, these could
provide much needed context on how our ways of approaching disability and design
have changed. And that there is not one right or wrong approach. Models of
Disability - as direct reflections of narratives of disability - further demonstrate how
capturing and conceptualising our past, present and emerging approaches might aid
critical reflection and natural progression of Inclusive Design.
Looking at emerging themes and the potential futures for Inclusive Design, some
shifts towards less idealistic frameworks and interrogations of core dilemmas - such
as design justice and fairness by design - are noted in the field. Such critically
reflective approach to Inclusive Design, both in theory and practice, is much needed
and should be increased, rather than existing sporadically and in silos.
More interdisciplinary and critically reflective research – informed by multiple
disciplines such as design, disability studies, social justice and anthropology - is
recommended around historical timelines of Inclusive Design. Such work should
specifically consider incorporating ‘lived experience designers’ and their
contributions to the field, as well as ‘object ethnography’, which historically are prone
to be overlooked.
Going forward, paradoxes and dilemmas in Inclusive Design need to be further
investigated and more thoroughly outlined. This will provide a more critical and
realistic picture of the field and its existing narratives and practices, and help
transition it to its next level. It is important to critique the field – both conceptually and
in practice - rather than putting it on a pedestal, and to learn from key historical
moments and narratives from the past, to shape and inform the future.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
23
7. References
Belolan, N. (2020). 1 The Material Culture of Gout in Early America. Making Disability
Modern: Design Histories, 19
Bianchin, M. and Heylighen, A. (2017) ‘Fair by design. Addressing the paradox of inclusive
design approaches’, The Design Journal. Routledge, 20(sup1), pp. S3162–S3170. doi:
10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822.
Bianchin, M., & Heylighen, A. (2018). Just design. Design Studies, 54, 1-22.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.
Carpentier, T., & Lambert, T. (2014). Beautiful users: Designing for people. Chronicle
Books.
Clarkson, P. and Coleman, R. (2015) ‘History of inclusive design in the UK’, Applied
Ergonomics. Elsevier Ltd, 46(PB), pp. 235–247. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002.
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds
we need. The MIT Press.
Danko, S. (2006) ‘Humanizing design through narrative inquiry’, Journal of Interior Design,
31(2), pp. 10–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1668.2005.tb00408.x.
Dong, H. and Clarkson, J. (2007) ‘Barriers and Drivers for Inclusive Design: Designer’s
Perspective’, Include 2007. Available at:
http://www.hhc.rca.ac.uk/kt/include/2007/proceedings/paper.php?ID=1_98.
Dong, H., (2020) Evolving Inclusive Design. [online] Youtube.com. Available at:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzl1dKCMGLw> [Accessed 11 November 2021].
Dorp, O. H. (2020). 6 Architecture, Science, and Disabled Citizenship. Making Disability
Modern: Design Histories, 113.
Finkelstein, V. (1988). To deny or not to deny disability. Physiotherapy, 74(12), 650-652.
Guffey, E. and Williamson B. (2020). Disability Made Modern: Design Histories, London:
Bloomsbury Publishing,
Godelnik, R., 2021. The battle of narratives: Five new sustainability narratives for
business. [online] Medium. Available at: <https://razgo.medium.com/the-battle-of-
narratives-designing-new-sustainability-narratives-for-corporations-880f1419391e>
[Accessed 17 November 2021].

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
24
Gotcher, J. M. (1989, August). Assisting the Handicapped: The Efforts of Frank and Lillian
Gilbreth. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1989, No. 1, pp. 143-146).
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Grant, L. (2013) A disability History Timeline, NHS North West
Hendren, S. (2020) What Can A Body Do? How We Meet The Built World. 1st ed. New
York: Riverhead.
Herssens, J. (2011). Designing architecture for more. A Framework of Haptic Design
Parameters with the Experience of People Born Blind (Doctoral Thesis) Department of
Arts and Architecture, PHL University College-University Hasselt: Association Faculty
Universiteiten and Hogescholen Limburg, Hasselt.
Heylighen, A., & Dong, A. (2019). To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its
limits in design. Design Studies, 65, 107-124.
Heylighen, A. (2014). About the nature of design in universal design. Disability and
rehabilitation, 36(16), 1360-1368.
Ielegems, E., Herssens, J., & Vanrie, J. (2015). A V-model for more. An inclusive design
model supporting interaction between designer and user. In DS 80-9 Proceedings of the
20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol 9: User-Centred
Design, Design of Socio-Technical systems, Milan, Italy, 27-30.07. 15 (pp. 259-268).
Klein, R. S., & Bell, W. J. (Eds.). (1986). Science and Society in Early America: Essays in
Honor of Whitfield J. Bell, Jr (Vol. 166). American Philosophical Society.
Lacke, S., (2021) The History and Evolution of Disability Models. [online]
Accessibility.com. Available at: <https://www.accessibility.com/blog/the-history-and-
evolution-of-disability-models> [Accessed 7 November 2021].
Liffers, C. (2020). 3 Artificial Limbs on the Panama Canal. Making Disability Modern:
Design Histories, 61.
Meister, J., (2011) Narratology: the living handbook of narratology. [online] Lhn.uni-
hamburg. Available at: <https://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/48.html> [Accessed 20
November 202
Myerson, J. (2012). A Growing Movement CHAPTER 3. Design for Inclusivity: A Practical
Guide to Accessible, Innovative and User-Centred Design, 23.

The Evolution of Inclusive Design; A First Timeline Review of Narratives and Milestones
25
O’Sullivan, C. and Nickpour, F. (2020) ‘50 Years of Inclusive Design for Childhood
Mobility ; Insights from an Illustrative Mapping Review’, (1982), pp. 1–25. doi:
10.21606/drs.2020.275.
Ott, K., Serlin, D., & Mihm, S. (Eds.). (2002). Artificial parts, practical lives: modern
histories of prosthetics. NYU Press.
Ott, K. (2002). The sum of its parts. Artificial parts, practical lives: Modern histories of
prosthetics, 1-42.
Papanek, V. (2011). Design for the Real World: Human ecology and social change, 1971.
St Albans, Herts.: St Albans, Herts.: Paladin.
Petasis, A (2019) Discrepancies of the Medical, Social and Biopsychosocial Models of
Disability; A Comprehensive Theoretical Framework, The International Journal of
Business Management and Technology, Volume 3 Issue 4 July – August 2019
Shades of Noir Journals. (2021). Evolution of Disability Models. [online] Available at:
<https://shadesofnoir.org.uk/journals/content/evolution-of-disability-models> [Accessed
12 November 2021].
Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.
Richter, K., Heylighen, A., & Donath, D. (2007). Looking back to the future.
Virdi, J. (2020). 13 Materializing User Identities & Digital Humanities. Making Disability
Modern: Design Histories, 225.
Whitney, K. (2020). 8 Design for Deaf Education: Early History of the NTID. Making
Disability Modern: Design Histories, 143.
Willis, A. M. (2006). Ontological designing. Design philosophy papers, 4(2), 69-92.
Yonghun Lim, Joseph Giacomin & Farnaz Nickpour (2021) What Is Psychosocially
Inclusive Design? A Definition with Constructs, The Design Journal, 24:1, 5-28, DOI:
10.1080/14606925.2020.1849964
Zeitlyn, D. (2015) Looking Forward, Looking Back, History and Anthropology, 26:4, 381-
407, DOI: 10.1080/02757206.2015.1076813

KILLE-SPECKTER, L. AND NICKPOUR, F.
26
About the Authors:
Luka Kille -Speckter is a lived-experience designer, consultant,
PhD researcher and educator. Her mixed background of social
science, experience design and inclusive design, Luka combines her
expertise with her lived-experience of visual impairment to outline
design opportunities and impact.
Dr Farnaz Nickpour is a Reader in Inclusive Design and Human
Centred Innovation at the University of Liverpool and leads The
Inclusionaries Lab for Design Research. Her work explores critical
and contemporary dimensions of inclusive and human-centred
design across Healthcare and Mobility sectors.