Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Chairs and tables also offered wheeled capability and could therefore be moved around
the room simply and intuitively with low physical effort.
The conference room was also designed in terms of equitable use so that it was large
enough to accommodate groups of people with various mobility devices and commu-
nication needs who may meet for various reasons. Communication was an important
consideration in designing the conference room. The room was designed to abide by the
acoustical standards prescribed by ADAAG, making use of microphone options to sup-
port communication needs and accommodation of large groups (U.S. Access Board 2004).
Light-harvesting options were also used to maximize natural light in coordination with
artificial light to minimize the energy costs and maximize applicability to various users.
The case example of the conference room described earlier demonstrates how consid-
erations of accessibility, sustainability, and UD within the environment can be combined
with evaluation of users' needs and knowledge of AT features to arrive at an appropriate
assistive solution. This case example can be appraised by reflecting back on the intersec-
tion model (Figure 4.1) and the continuum model (Figure 4.2) introduced at the beginning
of this chapter. All three dimensions (accessibility, UD, and sustainability) were taken into
consideration during the EA process when designing the conference room. Each design
decision informed by the EA process can be evaluated in terms of whether it fell within
the ideal center depicted in Figure 4.1. If it did, then it could be said that an ideal assistive
solution was achieved. If not, then we need to determine where the decision fell along the
three bars of the continuum model depicted in Figure 4.2. To illustrate this point further,
we describe two instances: one in which the design decision achieved the ideal center and
one in which the decision initially fell outside of the ideal center, suggesting tradeoffs
among the dimensions of accessibility, sustainability, and UD. While appraising the case
example in this manner, it is important to bear in mind that within this example, the term
”user” refers to the collective of staff and consumers of Access Living.
Let us first consider the conference room seating furniture. When this furniture is rated
separately on each bar of the continuum model, it consistently falls on the higher (left) end
of each bar. As a UD element, it rates well because of its ergonomic design, that demands
low physical effort, flexibility in terms of use as a result of adjustable height, and flexibility
in terms of storage as a result of stackability. In terms of sustainability, it rates well because
of its recyclabilty and low emission qualities and because it is locally manufactured using
VOC-free manufacturing processes. In terms of accessibility, it rates well because of the
additional feature of adjustable armrests that allow for easy transfers from other surfaces
such as wheelchairs. Therefore, considering all three elements together, this furniture falls
in the ideal center on the intersection model and represents an appropriate assistive solu-
tion for the various people expected to use the conference room.
A contrasting example is the communication system designed for the conference room.
The original design of the communication system made use of microphone capability and
an audio frequency induction loop. In terms of accessibility, this design decision rated well
because it conformed to standards of communication access recommended for people who
are deaf/hard of hearing under the ADAAG and adequately supported technologies needed
by this group such as hearing aids. In terms of UD, the communication system did not rate as
well because it would be distractive and would pose challenges to people with cognitive dis-
abilities, people attempting to negotiate parallel conversations, and people with hearing sen-
sitivities. In terms of sustainability, the communication system required additional materials
but was included in the original design, necessitating few postconstruction modifications.
Thus, the original design of the communication system entailed gains in the accessibility
continuum (specifically for deaf/hard of hearing users) through a tradeoff with gains in the
