%% apa:: Guffey, E. (2017). _Designing Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society_. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. [https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350004245](https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350004245) %% # Designing Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society --- Guffey, E. (2017). _Designing Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society_. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. [https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350004245](https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350004245) --- ## Metadata title: Designing Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society author:: Elizabeth Guffey date_published:: 2017 cite-key:: guffey2017DesigningDisabilitySymbols type: Book keywords:: [[Accessibility]], [[Disability]], [[International Symbol of Access]] --- ## Abstract Designing Disability traces the emergence of an idea and an ideal — physical access for the disabled — through the evolution of the iconic International Symbol of Access (ISA). The book draws on approaches from design history, material culture and recent critical disability studies to examine not only the development of a design icon, but also the cultural history surrounding it. Infirmity and illness may be seen as part of human experience, but ’disability’ is a social construct, a way of thinking about and constructing responses to human conditions. Elizabeth Guffey’s highly original and wide-ranging study addresses the period before the ISA, tracing the design history of the wheelchair, a product that spoke to the mobility needs of a growing community of veterans and polio survivors from the 1930s onwards. She examines the rise of ’barrier-free architecture’ in the US, which takes shape around the modern wheelchair, and the consequent need for signage. She analyses the reception of the ISA, with the symbol becoming widely adopted and even a mark of identity, especially for the Disability Rights Movement. But ultimately, a growing debate has unfurled around this symbol; the most vigorous critique today has evolved with guerrilla art, graffiti and studio practice, and above all, it reflects a series of new challenges to design and disability in the twenty-first century. --- ### Table of Contents Front matter Introduction: Disability by Design? 1. History of an Idea: Access (–1961) 1. Origins of a Misfit Design The Advent of the Modern Wheelchair (–1945) 2. Fitting In (1945–1961) 2. Redesigning Signs and Space (1961–1974) 3. The Personal Politics of Signs (1961–1965) 4. Signs of Discrimination (1965–1968) 5. A Design for the Real World? (1968–1974) 3. A Mark of Identity (1974–Today) 6. Signs of Protest (1974–1990) 7. A Critical Design? (1990–Today) Epilogue The Beginning of the End? Back matter %% --- ## Notes %% ### Introduction: Disability by Design? ### Origins of a Misfit Design The Advent of the Modern Wheelchair (–1945) ### Fitting In (1945–1961) %% ### The Personal Politics of Signs (1961–1965) - [[Timothy Nugent]] was a professor with the University of Illinois who focused on barrier-free access in architecture. - Nugent's approach was that the [[Built environment]] was disabling, putting the responsibility for access on the design and designer instead of the individual. - Nugent's work became the basis of ANSI 117.1 (the American National Standards Institute), and was influential in part because 50,000 copies of the guidelines were distributed, including 14,000 copies going to American Institute of Architects (AIA) members. ANSI 117.1 became the core of the US Architectural Barriers Act in 1968. - There was a cultural difference in how the United States and Europe approached accessibility. - In the United States, accessibility was a ground-up movement by persons with disabilities and related organizations. - In European nations, it was a top-down approach, lead by government welfare and health authorities to bring services to citizens. - There was a different understanding of what accessibility meant in the United States and Europe: - In Europe, the focus was on mobility-based impairments, and looked at small scale accessible implementations contained within spaces. - Nugent believed disability included vision and hearing impairment in addition to mobility impairments - Nugent spoke about this in October 1961 at a conference (the International Society of Rehabilitation of the Disabled) in Stockholm, Sweden and introduced the broader concept of barrier-free access. - [[Selwyn Goldsmith]] was British architect who used a wheelchair, having had polio. Goldsmith would become a leading voice in the UK for designing for disabilities. - The Second World War contributed to the rise in attention for accessible needs in society. Individuals with disabilities were living longer, had access to improved healthcare, and [[Assistive technology|assistive technologies]] like wheelchairs were becoming more technologically advanced and within reach. Individuals with disabilities were more present in public life as a result. - The wheelchair became an agent of social, cultural, and political change in both the United States and Europe, happening between the 1940s and 1960s. ### Signs of Discrimination (1965–1968) *Highlight [page 1]:* becoming a full-fledged advocate for disabled people and arguing for separate, but equal, facilities for them. He even developed a special term for his approach, something he called “positive discrimination,” and began using it in relation to access signs (Goldsmith, 1967: 388). *Highlight [page 1]:* primarily in statistics, indicating a kind of winnowing process in which only the best kernels of corn or military recruits were found acceptable. *Highlight [page 1]:* From “positive solutions” to “positive attitudes,” the driving optimism of Britain’s social democrats moved the term from numerical analysis to the very real world of schools and classrooms; it meant to discriminate in favor of people with certain characteristics (sex, age, religion, ethnic origins) rather than against them. But in the United States, the notion of discrimination, be it positive or not, carried a different set of associations. *Highlight [page 2]:* an unequal form of discrimination that led to separate, but unequal, facilities in the segregated South *Highlight [page 3]:* the power of prohibitory messages. Here, signs often served to regulate—not liberate—a visible minority (Figure 4.1). Jim Crow signs directed African Americans to backroom facilities and through hidden points of access. Separate treatment, like backdoor entrances, distinct water fountains, and basement toilets, haunted the North American social imaginary and built environment alike. *Highlight [page 3]:* For them, barriers in the environment seemed almost willfully designed to be unaccommodating. They signaled a different kind of unspoken segregation. *Highlight [page 3]:* In the United States, segregation signs were widely known and haunted the collective imagination of disabled people; they illustrated how written postings might be deployed to inhibit—not empower—disabled people. *Highlight [page 4]:* North Americans favored oblique, abstracting signage so enigmatic that its message of access seemed hidden or “secret” (Goldsmith, 1969b: 10; Tomlinson and Stevens, 1972: 108). Arguing for a form of “positive discrimination,” in the UK, Goldsmith led the way for something different—access signs that were more robust and much clearer. Above all, he argued for symbols based on the human figure. *Highlight [page 4]:* 1965, the Canadian Research Council *Highlight [page 5]:* “Building Standards for the Handicapped,” a set of guidelines intended to increase access in public buildings *Highlight [page 5]:* Canadian symbol effectively marked something different—an architecture of access *Highlight [page 5]:* its abstract nature put it in a class of symbols that “communicate only with the initiated” (Tomlinson and Stevens, 1972: 106). *Highlight [page 5]:* The Canadian insignia might suggest a sophisticated balance between the US and British approaches toward access and barriers in the public space. But it should also be seen against a backdrop of national ambition. *Highlight [page 5]:* Canadians were keenly aware of the power of graphic symbols when the country prepared to replace the Canadian Red Ensign, that is, the Union Jack and shield of the royal arms, with a new maple leaf flag *Highlight [page 6]:* where the national flag was meant to be easily recognizable and iconic, the insignia was willfully covert. Its meaning, as one critic at the time complained, was “cryptic,” and its vague symbolism presented itself as a form of secret knowledge (Tomlinson and Stevens, 1972: 27) *Highlight [page 7]:* both symbols spurred dismay. *Highlight [page 7]:* Positive discrimination and the psychology of disablement *Highlight [page 7]:* 1963 publication of Designing for The Disabled in the UK, Selwyn Goldsmith immediately gained international stature as an expert on the subject of barrier-free architecture *Highlight [page 8]:* “I want positive discrimination to accommodate severely handicapped and disabled people. ” But more to his original point, he aimed to align positive discrimination with what he called “the psychology of disablement” (Goldsmith, 1969: 11). *Highlight [page 8]:* there is no stigma to being disabled *Highlight [page 8]:* it is impossible to design facilities which are usable by everyone” (Tomlinson and Stevens, 1972: 108) *Highlight [page 8]:* the American ethos of independence—that is, of not accepting or needing help—was inconsistent with what he called the “social welfare” policies of the British government (Goldsmith, 1983). *Highlight [page 8]:* argued that the US approach fundamentally lacked moral authority. *Highlight [page 9]:* Nugent would have insisted that the abolition of architectural barriers would allow disabled people to live normal lives. But as Goldsmith told the London Times in 1967, independence is “only a relative value” (Anon., 1967c: 10). *Highlight [page 9]:* basic principles of psychology. *Underline [page 9]:* disablement would become “an integral part of the image which he presents to the world, and he looks upon it in the same detached fashion as people regard their spectacles or false teeth” (Goldsmith, 1969b: 12) *Highlight [page 9]:* link between signage and this type of positive psychology was, for Goldsmith, clear enough. If a person were well adjusted, there would be no need for cryptic, abstracting, or “camouflaging” signs. As proponents of Goldsmith’s position noted, the secretive approach suggests that physical disability is a “ ‘tragic, calamitous and shattering experience’ and supposes that disabled people must inevitably regard their handicaps in the same way. ” Such attitudes suppose that “disabled people must inevitably regard their handicaps in the same way—that they can best be assisted by pretending that the damage has never occurred” (Tomlinson and Stevens, 1972: 108). *Highlight [page 13]:* a modular system, in which different pieces of information might be communicated *Highlight [page 13]:* the group indicated that persons with invisible disabilities like pulmonary or cardiac conditions ought to be included (Goldsmith, 1969: 20) *Highlight [page 13]:* preferred a “single symbol only to cater for all handicapped people, which would probably be a representation of a person in a wheelchair. *Highlight [page 13]:* there is no stigma associated with disability, 107some “sensitive” disabled people “do not wish to be reminded” of their disability and disliked any symbol that “focuses attention on the attributes which they are anxious to disguise” (Goldsmith, 1969: 11) *Highlight [page 13]:* at least one person liked the abstract symbols in use in the United States and Canada. Goldsmith treated the latter opinion as an outlier and rejected it wholesale. He explained that this point of view was advanced by a man who “had been severely handicapped since the age of two, had always displayed an aggressive attitude toward disability, was fiercely determined to operate as a normal person, and did not want to be associated with any stigmatizing emblem which advertised disability characteristics” (Goldsmith, 1969: 35) *Highlight [page 14]:* the presence of a person in the signage reflected his understanding of “positive discrimination. ” Ultimately, Goldsmith turned to what he called “the psychology of disablement” to deal with this. *Highlight [page 14]:* Goldsmith had begun advancing the belief that “a pictorial symbol … could make a valuable psychological impact on the community as a whole” (Goldsmith, 1967: 388) *Highlight [page 14]:* Goldsmith had already determined to make a symbol worthy of “positive discrimination,” a symbol that disabled people might identify with. And so, finding it “impossible to ignore [the] reactions” of these psychologists, he discarded the vacant wheelchair symbol (Goldsmith, 1969: 23). In his efforts to empower them, Goldsmith discounted the opinions of disabled people and considered instead what the experts, in this case psychologists, had to say. *Highlight [page 15]:* Only rarely did disabled persons actually need directional signage, he concluded. Instead, they would benefit the most from “an information system communicating equally to the general public and the disabled people” where access—as well as helpful services like wheelchairs available on loan—could be found. Thus a single image—rather than the modular system combining different images—might work better (Tomlinson and Stevens, 1972: 110). *Highlight [page 18]:* Arthur was the first professional designer to integrate an access symbol into a larger system of communication *Highlight [page 18]:* More than introducing signage for a world’s fair, Arthur was sympathetic to the Expo planners’ real aim —creating an ideal city. *Highlight [page 18]:* Arthur’s was better positioned for international attention *Highlight [page 18]:* press attention *Highlight [page 19]:* part of a larger government-sponsored push to bring disabled visitors to the fair *Highlight [page 19]:* experimental site where the success of a coherent pictorial system was rolled out for a broader, polyglot public. And so, with the impetuousness of an outsider, Paul Arthur jumped headlong into the broader access signage debate *Highlight [page 20]:* idea of universal of signs and symbols *Highlight [page 20]:* Swiss multilingualism *Highlight [page 20]:* After returning to Canada in 1956, Arthur was credited with bringing a “European influence” back with him (Elder, 2005: 42) *Highlight [page 20]:* Norman Hay, *Highlight [page 20]:* Expo has developed a totally unified system of design that covers everything from wastepaper baskets to signs telling you where to park your yacht *Highlight [page 20]:* he wanted to create signage that was unified, but also legible *Highlight [page 20]:* “A good symbol must be concise and simple, its form must be easy to understand and easy to remember” (Arthur & Associates, n.d.: 10) *Highlight [page 20]:* Martin Krampen, a semiotician and professor at Michigan State University who had studied at Germany’s renowned Hochschule fur Gestaltung in Ulm. Imbued with the school’s rationalist ideology, Krampen argued that symbols should be created through a scientific method that identified a “common stock of signs” that would clearly be understood by both “sender” and “receiver” (Baker, 2011: 42) *Highlight [page 20]:* Typographic messages,” Arthur insisted, “should be used when all other visual communication are inadequate” (Arthur, 1967: 50) *Highlight [page 20]:* Communications, he rationalized, are based on mutually agreed-upon conventions. They operate as a system of sounds and forms that could unify cities, regions, or countries. Symbols could be used to calm misunderstandings between nations, to facilitate the movement of goods, and to assist and advise both strangers and residents of vast cities. *Highlight [page 21]:* as this was an international exposition, Expo graphics had to conform to international standards and the existing symbol did not meet those standards” (Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, 1969: 2074). *Highlight [page 21]:* international signage, they urged, should be consistent with other symbols in use and also a degree of “recognizability. ”6 *Highlight [page 21]:* Arthur and his team did not, however, aim to humanize their symbol *Highlight [page 21]:* developed a symbol reducible to logical, easily understood parts *Highlight [page 21]:* All symbols were placed in a grid and mounted on signs. Directions were ordered by combining these pictograms with simple arrows. By the late 1960s, many designers agreed with Arthurcoherent systems of communication like this would lead to a more rational world. *Highlight [page 21]:* Canadian politics at the time, and stretches beyond the issue of multilingualism *Highlight [page 21]:* 1920s, Canada’s federal government began to create and administer a series of social programs. By the mid–1960s, Canada was *Highlight [page 22]:* unfolding its own version of a welfare state, covering employment insurance, family allowances, old-age pensions, and hospital and medical insurance; in many ways, these changes echoed those implemented in the European welfare states for the purpose of increasing social services *Highlight [page 22]:* Expo 67 was originally planned to mark the centenary of the Canadian confederation; the writer Robert Fulford called it “the greatest birthday party in history” (Fulford, 1968: 201) *Highlight [page 22]:* bolster national unity *Highlight [page 22]:* vision also meant to include—but not highlight—disability. When integrated within a larger system of signage, the access symbol seems dispassionate and routine *Highlight [page 22]:* aimed at 80 percent accessibility for visitors in wheelchairs. To achieve this, they distributed copies of the Canadian building code to all builders involved, and strongly encouraged pavilion planners to follow it (Francke and Francke, 1967: xxii); even seemingly inaccessible exhibits, like the Pavilion of Guyana and Barbados, didn’t daunt visitors (Figure 4.9) *Highlight [page 23]:* By September 9, 1967, some 16,000 disabled people had officially visited the Expo (Anon., 1967b: 12) *Highlight [page 24]:* 50 million visits *Highlight [page 24]:* traditionally, North American signs were casually conceived and almost exclusively verbal. Arthur’s pictograms were a new idea. Some visitors recognized in them a cheery echo of the contemporary art that sprinkled the fair grounds. Robert Fulford observed that “the Pop and Op art signs for things like hot dogs and souvenir stands … became a kind of signature, a part of the mood of the place” (Fulford, 1968: 74) *Highlight [page 24]:* animal silhouettes to appear on signs in the parking lot, all to help visitors remember where they’d left their car, many fair-goers were delighted (Figure 4.10). But some visitors were also mystified. In a few instances, illegibility generated multilingual confusion. *Highlight [page 25]:* Although almost universally understood today, Arthur used silhouettes to distinguish between men and women for washroom signage. There was precedent for this—pictograms differentiating men and women were first introduced at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics with little fanfare. Nevertheless, it was a novelty for North American audiences. Arthur’s pictograms featured men in trousers, and women in skirts *Highlight [page 26]:* aesthetically it is more successful than the official Canadian symbol” (Goldsmith, 1969: 10). And this was all very nice, he argued, but it was still too abstract. To Goldsmith’s eye, the Expo 67 symbol remained too imprecise and “would be unlikely to be interpreted correctly by the uninitiated lay observer” (Goldsmith, 1969: 10). *Highlight [page 26]:* clearly, there had to be widespread institutional support for it as well ### A Design for the Real World? (1968–1974) - > "This highly focused interest in the intersection of design, disability, and social justice that summer in Stockholm led to the earliest iteration of the access symbol. It was so influential that it is still used today."" - > "By 1968, as the barrier-free access movement had spread across Europe and North America, it prompted a deeper reckoning of ideas of citizenship." - > "But professional graphic designers began engaging ideas around access, disability, and their relevance to design only in the late 1960s. At [[Expo 1967 Montreal|Expo 67]], [[Paul Arthur]] introduced an access symbol that was part of a larger communications system. The next year, a variation on that symbol was developed by students in Sweden, under the influence of designer and critic Victor Papanek. Responding to this cacophony of signage, in 1968 Rehabilitation International (RI) stepped forward to develop a single symbol." - > The [[International Symbol of Access|ISA]] was officially accepted by the United Nations in 1974 - > "…today’s wheelchair figure represents a rough and sometimes contentious compromise. Acton authorized a committee within RI, the International Commission for Technical Aids (ICTA), to rapidly develop an official International Symbol of Access (ISA) that could be presented at the group’s 1969 World Congress. The resulting image—essentially a schematic wheelchair with a circular “head” placed on its back—unwittingly embodies a series of culture clashes; first and foremost it awkwardly expresses a conflict between the goals of the student-activist designers who authored the symbol, and the long-standing and rather conservative organization promoting its use." - Susanne Koefoed designed the original wheelchair symbol that was later developed into the [[International Symbol of Access]] - > …"the wheelchair figure is itself a compromise between the “real world,” and the ideals that it represents" - > Karl Montan, a Swedish bureaucrat who headed the ICTA: > > "Swedish Institute for the Handicapped. The latter group was tasked with research and development of technical aids for disabled people, as well as their testing and marketing. With Montan at its head, the institution would become an influential organization for years to come. > > Montan’s engagement with issues of disability was both professional and deeply personal. Montan identified instinctively with disabled persons. > > He was aided in this pursuit by the fundamental ideology that motivated [[Selwyn Goldsmith]] as well—the promise of equality and societal support for all - > "Sweden was considered a leader within “the Scandinavian model” of postwar state support delivered to those with physical and mental impairments" - > "This growth reflects, in part, the country’s deeper and deeper engagement with the social welfare of all its citizens. But it also reflects the highly effective lobbying of bureaucrats like Montan and the work done by the Institute he founded in 1968…" - > "As early as the 1950s, adapted housing was being designed for wheelchair users…" > > Beginning in 1964, the Swedish Fokus Society, a nonprofit organization funded by the Swedish government, began to provide disabled people with barrier-free apartments, as well as environmental and technical aids. Local governments also began to provide disabled people with health services and regional medical and social centers."" - > "The Swedish Institute for the Handicapped was deeply enmeshed in a wide range of technical aids and assistive devices designed to help disabled people negotiate a world not built for them. Considered within this context, a symbol meant to guide the mobility impaired to accommodations was less a piece of graphic design than it was a technical aid akin to hearing aids and prostheses. All three attempt to integrate disabled people into the physical world around them." - > "By the 1960s, designers were laying claim to their proficiency and technical knowledge; they were more than commercial artists" > > The International Council of Graphic Design Associations (ICOGRADA), established in London in 1963, clearly staked out a professional space as experts in the field, arguing that symbols in the public space should aspire to a degree of clear, visual coherence (Baker, 2011: 39) > > the development of technical aids and the design of graphic imagery were generally recognized as distinct endeavors that, for reasons of time, effort, or training, were difficult to balance. - > …"the panScandinavian student design organization or SDO, an activist group founded in February 1966 at a Stockholm meeting of student council representatives from a number of different design programs in Scandinavia. The group pushed for a radical rethinking of design curricula in schools, aiming to introduce more activist, anti-consumerist models and theories into the academy (for more on these activities at Konstfack, see Widengren 1994). But they also wanted to develop practical solutions. To this end, in the late 1960s they sponsored a series of annual summer seminars intended to supplement teaching at conventional design schools. Led by forward-thinking designers and theorists like Buckminster Fuller, the seminars were marked by talks and also workshops that took up social issues. And it was here, during the 1968 seminar held at Konstfack in Stockholm, that the access symbol came into being. - > Victor "Papanek was one of a number of speakers invited to lecture on the theme of “Man and the Environment.” > > "…the assembled students also split into smaller groups to work on practical projects revolving around six working themes: morally and socially responsible design, housing, communications, the environment, and disability." - > "Paul Arthur’s wheelchair symbol for the 1967 Montreal Expo was widely publicized at the time" - > "Ultimately, it was a variation on Koefoed’s design that was finally accepted by rehabilitation professionals worldwide." - The pictographs introduced in 1969 at the World Congress in Dublin by Rehabilitation International humanize Koefoed’s original 1968 wheelchair symbol. It added a small dot — a head — onto the figure in a change, turning the schematic icon into a pictogram representing a person. > "In 1969, Rehabilitation International unveiled an access symbol at their World Congress in Dublin. The icon was based on Koefoed’s design, but it had been subtly altered in a significant way. A small circle had been added to Koefoed’s image of a wheelchair. Depicting a side view of the wheelchair, and elegantly linking the wheel with armrest, Koefoed had introduced a carefully calibrated pictogram. Encompassed in a single line, too, the chair back, seat, and leg rest articulated a simple and direct symbol. Small as the change may seem, setting a circle atop the chair’s back made the wheelchair into a person." - > "According to Rehabilitation International’s own records, Koefoed’s symbol was presented to an international jury of nine professionals, and selected from a field of six entries, all of which were already in use. Alongside the Koefoed symbol were two Canadian candidates—[[Paul Arthur|Paul Arthur's]] design for [[Expo 1967 Montreal|Expo 67]] and the 1965 access code insignia; two American entries—the New York parks symbol and a variant submitted by a Pennsylvania-based organization, Open Doors for the Handicapped; and, finally, [[Selwyn Goldsmith|Goldsmith's]] Norwich design." - > [[Karl Montan]], committee chair, suggested that a head be added (ICTA, 1969; Ben-Moshe and Powell, 2007: 492). > "an act of simple, bureaucratic pragmatism" - > "But, by choosing to change the wheelchair—effectively adding an appendage to it—he essentially added a prosthetic to the graphic symbol in question. Indeed, if we follow one line of thinking to its logical end, disability itself can be cured by simply adding something on and making up for a perceived lack or deviance from normality. Essentially, he created a design misfit." - > "By adding the circle, Montan also forces viewers to reconceive the rest of the wheelchair shape. The footrest becomes a foot, and the leg support reads as a lower limb. Nevertheless, if the armrest becomes an arm, it has no hand to balance the 132foot. Not only does the final iteration compromise the integrity of Koefoed’s original design, it also represents a compromise between a series of formal questions and the desire to “humanize” the figure, giving it social and psychological resonance. In the end, it’s neither an abstracted symbol of the idea of access, nor is it an entirely recognizably human figure." - > "Koefoed has largely been forgotten as the designer of this symbol" - > "This is not only because of Montan’s amendment to Koefoed’s design. It also owes to the fact that RI was uniquely positioned to promote the wheelchair figure on a global stage. And, as it turned out, developing an international icon of access started, rather than ended, the process of introducing barrier-free architecture worldwide." - > "The symbol was also promoted widely in American and British professional rehabilitation, nursing, and medical journals" - > "In the United States, Fenmore Seton, a sign manufacturer and later president of RI, donated signs printed with the symbol, as did the Minnesota-based 3M Corporation (which fabricated self-adhesive decals and distributed them free of charge) (Rehabilitation International, 2017)" - > "Rehabilitation International wanted more than to simply disseminate the symbol; they wanted the wheelchair figure to be commonplace worldwide. At the time, there were only two groups capable of setting international pictogram standards: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) based in Geneva, Switzerland, and the United Nations." - > "At the time, there were only two groups capable of setting international pictogram standards: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) based in Geneva, Switzerland, and the United Nations. *and Note [page 15]:* What governing bodies now can set international standards for symbols? What is the relationship to emojis at present day?" - > "…the organization was primarily focused on construction, mass manufacture, and engineering. Founded in 1947, their original mission was to facilitate commerce and safety by ensuring standardized measurements and the quality of commonly used parts including, for example, aircraft and electronic equipment. Though the group began to discuss symbols in the 1960s, it wasn’t until the early 1970s that they started to focus on signage, after a majority of member countries asked the group to identify and maintain a standard for public information signage (Bakker, 2013: 45)" - > "…finally adopt and register RI’s symbol as part of their Graphical Symbols in 1984, as ISO Standard 7000 (ISO 7000. Graphical Symbols for Use on Equipment, 1984, 1989, 2004)" - Further reading: Barrier-Free Design” (International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled, 1975) - Further reading: Design for All Americans” (U.S. National Commission on Architectural Barriers to Rehabilitation of the Handicapped, 1968). Based in part on Nugent’s barrier-free access proposals - > "Especially in the United States, where secret knowledge had long dominated disabled access, the new symbol was deployed to guide users to accommodations, but also to raise awareness of the problems disabled people faced in public spaces." - > "Although RI did not adopt Goldsmith’s symbol, it agreed with his proposition. This line of thinking insisted that “the more it is used and seen, so much more will the general public become aware of the problem that design barriers present” (President’s Committee on the Handicapped, n.d.: 4)." - > "ICOGRADA’s Peter Kneebone said as much in his critique of the symbol." ### A Mark of Identity (1974–Today) ### Signs of Protest (1974–1990) - > "The International Symbol of Access (ISA) was, of course, adopted by the United Nations in 1974, but recognition of the symbol and the access it was meant to ensure was something else entirely." - Question: What was the timeline in Canada (federal and provincial)? > "…federal legislation affirming barrier-free access as a civil right finally became law in August 1968" - > "In so doing, the wheelchair figure came not only to label accommodations but, we might argue, also visualized a kind of “fit” between citizens and the environment. Where the symbol appeared, access was guaranteed. Or so was the promise." - > "Though federal law required accessibility, there was little effort to enforce it…" - > "Many activists would argue that architectural barriers did more than deny access. They also deprived disabled people of the full panoply of protections and duties of citizenship. To be clear, such concerns were simply not discussed earlier in the century. The disability rights protest movement is important not only for connecting civil rights to barrier-free access (with serious ramifications for physical mobility), but also because people with disabilities were claiming the right to participate in the public sphere, as well as to protections that they had long been denied. The symbol was not just a functional disseminator of information about where there were access points. It was also a marker of growing visibility." - > "But many other groups embraced a graphic symbol and deployed it publicly. Anti-war demonstrators quickly co-opted the familiar “peace symbol,” for example, from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Meanwhile the Black Panthers adopted two symbols—the clenched fist and the silhouette of a prowling panther—to disseminate their cause. Just as major corporations increasingly relied on a strong visual identity for corporate communications and advertising, so too did late twentieth-century activists. Ultimately the ISA filled a similar need for the nascent disability rights movement." - > "After the ISA was introduced in the 1970s, it came to play a curious double role. On the one hand, it functioned as a wayfinding device, labeling accommodations and pointing out routes of access. But it also stood in as a kind of visual shorthand, reminding disabled people and others of society’s commitment to barrier-free access—that is, to the idea that disabled people could be “fit” into contemporary society." - > "Most histories of the disability rights movement point to the catalyzing efforts of a small group of disabled students at UC Berkeley who gathered around the polio survivor Ed Roberts. In 1962, after resistance from that campus’ administration, Roberts was finally matriculated as a student but still was considered too disabled to live in university housing. Instead, he was asked to take up residence at the university’s student health facility. Roberts’ admission to Berkeley gained national attention, and other disabled students joined him, living in the dorms as well as student health services building there. This loose group, self-styled “the Rolling Quads” after their wheelchairs, began advocating for access across campus and in the city of Berkeley as well (Shapiro, 1993: 45–49). By 1972, these students had joined forces with other disabled people around the Bay Area to establish the Center for Independent Living." - Further research: Center for Independent Living ### A Critical Design? (1990–Today) ### Epilogue The Beginning of the End? %%