The Costs of Exclusion in Design
Scroll
Five million Australians across the country are unable to access products and services because of poor design.
Design is everywhere you turn. From street signs to an app on your phone, design is fundamental to all aspects of life.
However, its all encompassing nature means that each design decision made can result in a level of exclusion.
Exclusion occurs as a result of impairment. These can be either permanent, temporary, situational, or a combination of factors. For example: there are different cases where you might be restricted to completing tasks with one arm. Having only one arm is a permanent condition, having an arm in a cast is temporary, and holding a baby in one arm is situational.
Beyond physical factors, there are also socio-cultural differences – ability, language, culture, gender, age and other forms of human difference – that can impact a person’s lived experience. Yet, design often fails to include, cater and empathise with difference.
So what does exclusion in design actually cost?
Economic costs
A report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the Centre of Inclusive Design found that at least five million Australians are vulnerable to exclusion based on the number of Australians living with disability and the elderly alone. They possess over $40 billion in annual disposable income, a significant portion of which is untapped due to design exclusion.
The Centre for Inclusive Design further outlined that the relative cost of retrofitting a product or service to become inclusive “will increase significantly over time and can reach up to 10,000 times the cost of introducing inclusive design earlier on.”
Costly indeed.
Political costs
If the economic costs can be measured in numbers, the political costs of exclusion are less obvious. However, there is no doubt that policy and regulatory design can create unintended consequences. Research from Portulans Institute outlines that when the government seeks to “correct a known issue with regulatory frameworks, it can lead to a range of unintended responses. This includes avoidance, increased fear of legal consequences, and underperformance relative to goals.”
For instance, consider employment quotas around minority groups. Policy initiatives that are often incentivised financially, regulations like these can often fail to remedy the root of the issue; the relationship between minority groups and existing frameworks required for participation.
Including minority groups in policy design can empower them and improve their own lived experience.
Social costs
There is also a human cost associated with exclusion. In the report prepared by PwC, Australia has an incredibly diverse population. This includes but is not limited to:
18% living with a disability
48% of diverse ethnic background
28% living in regional or remote areas
Failure to design with inclusion in mind can isolate and disengage sections of broader society.
For example, information or situations familiar to a middle class family might not necessarily resonate with those of an immigrant family from Southeast Asia, for instance. The reverse also applies. Civic participation therefore requires a move towards inclusion. As Dr Manisha Amin, CEO of Centre for Inclusive Design, said, “design that considers the full range of human diversity…means more people are included.”
An inclusive design future
When it comes to exclusion in design, Kin+Carta Managing Director Richard Neish believes that an inclusive future is inevitable. Simply put, the costs far outweigh the benefits of staying the same.
“What we value physically we must value virtually. Inclusive design is a brand’s ability to access audiences they didn’t know they were excluding. Choose inclusion, and choose it now.”
That’s a future we should want to be a part of.
Interested in learning more about exclusion in design?
Want to know how to design for inclusion?
Download our report – Designing For Inclusion In Public Services – today!
