GLOSSARY

A shared space for understanding key concepts of EDI and design, that acknowledges the complexity and evolving nature of language.

Ability: In Disability Studies, Ability Studies, philosophy, and Design Studies, Ability (or Ability-Disability Dialectic) refers to a dynamic, normative, and socio-culturally constructed attribute denoting the physical, cognitive, or sensory capacity to perform tasks within specific contexts. Rather than an objective biological baseline, ability is epistemologically dialectical, constructed in relational opposition to disability. Gregor Wolbring’s Ability Studies framework demonstrates that societies produce “ability expectations” – culturally enforced standards of competence that privilege normative bodily functionings while naturalizing the marginalization of non-normative variations. Fiona Kumari Campbell posits that abledness is a constructed ideal maintained through ableist practices that frame disability as an intrinsic deficit rather than a socio-technical mismatch. In traditional design, artifacts and environments often treat ability as a static trait of a hypothetical “normate user”. Conversely, Ability-Based Design reframes ability as a dynamic relational property between human capabilities and designed systems. By requiring spatial, material, and digital systems to adapt to human capabilities, this paradigm dismantles the medicalized deficit model, positioning human ability as an evolving spectrum of diversity.

References:
Campbell, F.K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245181
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wobbrock, J.O., Kane, S.K., Gajos, K.Z., Harada, S. & Froehlich, J. (2011). Ability-based design: Concept,principles and examples. In: ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 3 (3), 9:1-9:27. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1952383.1952384
Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51 (2), 252-258. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.17

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Ability-based Design: In Design Studies, spatial design, ergonomics, and socio-technical theory, Ability-Based Design refers to a design paradigm that centralizes human abilities rather than impairments throughout the artifact and environmental lifecycle. Originating in accessible computing through Jacob O. Wobbrock and expanded across the broader design discipline, Ability-Based Design posits that designed environments, products, digital systems, and interfaces must dynamically adapt to match the specific, situated abilities of individual users, rather than requiring people to conform to rigid physical norms or rely on stigmatizing adaptations. Epistemologically grounded in the Social Model of Disability, Ability-Based Design reframes disability as a contextual mismatch created by the unexamined “ability assumptions” embedded in spatial and material configurations. ABD reverses the traditional accommodation burden: the designed system assumes responsibility for sensing, accommodating, and adjusting to human capability. This framework unifies permanent biological variations with situationally-induced impairments caused by environmental friction. Operationalized through adaptive spatial affordances, reconfigurable physical structures, and intelligent socio-technical architectures, Ability-Based Design replaces static “one-size-fits-all” baselines with responsive, human-centered environments.

References:
Kong, J., Zhong, M., Fogarty, J. & Wobbrock, J.O. (2024). The Ability-Based Design Mobile Toolkit (ABD-MT): Developer support for runtime interface adaptation based on users’ abilities. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8 (MHCI), 277:1-277:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3676524
Shinohara, K., Bennett, C.L. & Wobbrock, J.O. (2016). How designing for people with and without disabilities shapes student design thinking. In: Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ‘16). New York, NY: ACM. pp. 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982158
Wobbrock, J.O., Gajos, K.Z., Kane, S.K. & Vanderheiden, G.C. (2018). Ability-based design. Communications of the ACM, 61 (6), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148051
Wobbrock, J.O., Kane, S.K., Gajos, K.Z., Harada, S. & Froehlich, J. (2011). Ability-based design: Concept,principles and examples. In: ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 3 (3), 9:1-9:27. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1952383.1952384

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Ableism: In Design Studies and critical design theory, ableism is defined as the systemic socio-material ideology that establishes a prescriptive baseline of normative corporeal, sensory, and cognitive capabilities as the prerequisite for designing artifacts, environments, services, and digital interfaces. This system operates historically through a “normate template” – an infrastructure of anthropometric and ergonomic metrics rooted in classical proportional ideals, average-body paradigms, and human factors research that systematically frames human variation as a medical deficit or statistical deviation. At an operational level, ableism is reproduced through the designer’s ability bias and practices of ego-design, wherein non-disabled creators uncritically project their own physical and cognitive attributes onto users. This implicit bias produces structural mismatches that instantiate disablism: the social imposition of activity restrictions and spatial exclusions. Furthermore, these inaccessible environments generate psycho-emotional disablism, undermining the self-worth and agency of disabled individuals through enforced dependency and spatial rejection. Countering ableism requires moving beyond depoliticized Universal Design or Inclusive Design toward Critical Access Studies and crip technoscience, recognizing human variability as the biological norm and positioning disabled users as primary epistemic agents in co-creating inclusive lifeworlds.

References:
Campbell, F.K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt79d
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thomas, C. (1999). Female forms: Experiencing disability today. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51 (2), 252-258. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.17

Editors:
Emilio Rossi

Accessibility by Design: In Design Studies, human-computer interaction, architecture, and systems engineering, Accessibility by Design refers to a proactive paradigm and operational framework asserting that accessibility, usability, and semantic intelligibility must be integrated as intrinsic, non-negotiable quality attributes from the earliest conceptual stages of any product, spatial, digital, or service lifecycle. Replacing traditional reactive adaptations and costly physical or computational retrofitting, Accessibility by Design implements a proactive “Shift-Left” strategy that embeds accessibility constraints directly into spatial layouts, material specifications, system architectures, software code, and production workflows. While Universal Design and Inclusive Design offer overarching normative philosophies for human diversity, Accessibility by Design provides the operational infrastructure to execute them, translating international standards – such as ISO 21542, ISO/IEC 30071-1, ISO 22458, EN 301 549, and EN 17161 – into traceable component-level responsibilities. Methodologically, it spans modular physical ergonomics, reusable semantic interface structures, automated compliance testing, and ability-aware dynamic adaptation, extending across physical artifacts, smart urban environments, immersive technologies, and AI-driven platforms. By treating accessibility as a structural property rather than a superficial afterthought, Accessibility by Design minimizes technical and architectural debt, ensures regulatory compliance, and guarantees equitable human agency.

References:
European Committee for Standardization. (2019). EN 17161:2019 design for all – Accessibility following a design for all approach in products, goods, and services – Extending the range of users. Brussels: CEN
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). Information technology – Development of user interface accessibility – Part 1: Code of practice for creating accessible ICT products and services (ISO Standard No. ISO/IEC 30071-1:2019). Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization. (2021). Building construction – Accessibility and usability of the built environment (ISO Standard No. 21542:2021). Geneva: ISO.
Ianculescu, M., Băjenaru, L., Săndulescu, V. & Petean, C. (2026). A Standards-Mapped Accessibility-by-Design Framework for AI-Driven Smart Healthcare Solutions: Application to the NeuroPredict Platform. Information, 17 (9), 850. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17090850

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Accessibility Conformance Levels: In Web Engineering, Human-Computer Interaction, digital accessibility, and software evaluation, Accessibility Conformance Levels refers to standardized sets of requirements against which digital content and user interfaces are evaluated. Grounded in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2), conformance is structured across three cumulative levels: Level A establishes baseline accessibility requirements; Level AA incorporates Level A and AA criteria to address widespread barriers; and Level AAA enforces comprehensive criteria for maximum inclusion. Conformance extends beyond isolated components to encompass complete web pages, entire interaction processes, accessibility-supported technologies, and non-interference. Evaluating conformance requires a defined scope, version mapping, and evidence across all applicable criteria. Technical compliance at a single component level – such as an accessible form field – does not guarantee process-level accessibility if subsequent steps introduce operational barriers. Furthermore, automated accessibility testing cannot evaluate context, semantic meaning, or human judgment. Rather than serving as percentages, certification schemes, or linear severity scales, conformance levels inform context-specific evaluations, acknowledging that Level AAA compliance across an entire system is often technically or functionally unfeasible.

References
International Organization for Standardization. (2012). ISO/IEC 40500:2025 – Information technology – W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/91029.html (expected to be replaced soon by: https://www.iso.org/standard/94018.html)
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation, 12 December 2024). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
World Wide Web Consortium. (n.d.). Understanding conformance. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/conformance

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Accessibility in e-learning: In Educational Technology, Instructional Design, Higher Education Studies, and digital accessibility, Accessibility in E-Learning refers to an integrated pedagogical, technical, and institutional framework ensuring disabled learners can equitably access, engage with, and master digital learning environments, resources, activities, and assessments. Grounded in inclusive pedagogy, the core unit of analysis extends beyond isolated files or user interfaces to encompass the entire learning activity. Technical compliance at the platform level – such as a captioned video – does not ensure accessibility if accompanying tasks rely on unmediated visual cues or inaccessible interaction modes. Consequently, accessibility in e-learning requires structural coordination among educators, instructional designers, content authors, platform developers, and institutional support services. It incorporates universal design principles – such as Universal Design for Learning – to proactively accommodate learner variability through multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. Rather than relying solely on reactive accommodations or technical WCAG conformance, accessible e-learning aligns infrastructure, pedagogical design, and flexible assessment strategies to safeguard learner autonomy and equitable educational outcomes.

References
CAST. (2024). CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. S.l.: CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Meyer, A., Rose, D.H. & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Lynnfield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. https://publishing.cast.org/catalog/books-products/universal-design-for-learning-meyer-rose-gordon?srsltid=AYCX9vI1QOfD5APt-2G2pewQRbmK3b2414r9DcNpL7cX_g6H9H-ZCiEv
Seale, J. (2014). E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation, 12 December 2024). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

Editor
Alessia Brischetto

Accessible Procurement: In Public Administration, Organizational Governance, Information Systems, and Design Management, Accessible Procurement refers to a strategic framework that integrates accessibility requirements into the specification, selection, purchasing, and ongoing management of products and services. Grounded in European public procurement law and international accessibility standards, accessible procurement requires technical specifications for goods and services intended for human use to incorporate accessibility or Design for All principles prior to vendor selection. Proactive integration is essential, as post-contractual modifications are constrained by legal agreements, proprietary architectures, and prohibitive retrofit costs. Methodologically, accessible procurement replaces reliance on unverified supplier conformance claims with rigorous multi-stage evaluation. This includes practical task demonstrations, documentation auditing, user testing, and contractual maintenance agreements ensuring long-term barrier correction. Standardized through technical specifications such as EN 301 549 and EN 17161, accessible procurement connects purchasing decisions directly to operational performance. For educational institutions and public sector entities, accessible procurement acts as a critical institutional lever to prevent systemic exclusion across learning platforms, digital infrastructure, and outsourced services.

References
European Committee for Standardization. (2019). Design for All – Accessibility following a Design for All approach in products, goods and services – Extending the range of users (EN 17161:2019). https://www.cencenelec.eu/areas-of-work/cen-cenelec-topics/accessibility/design-for-all/
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2014). Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 94, 65-242. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/24/oj
European Telecommunications Standards Institute, European Committee for Standardization & European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. (2026). Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services (EN 301 549 V4.1.1). https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/04.01.01_60/en_301549v040101p.pdf
International Organization for Standardization & International Electrotechnical Commission. (2019). Information technology — Development of user interface accessibility – Part 1: Code of practice for creating accessible ICT products and services (ISO/IEC 30071-1:2019). Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/70913.html

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Ageing: In gerontology, public health, and Design Studies, Ageing refers to a dynamic, multi-scalar bio-cultural process characterized by progressive shifts in physiological integrity, sensory acuity, cognitive processing, and homeostatic reserves over the lifespan. Moving beyond medicalized paradigms that reduce ageing to mere pathology or deficit, contemporary scholarship frames senescence as an inevitable manifestation of human functional variability. At the socio-technical interface, ageing materializes through the shifting fit between individual capabilities and environmental demands, where inflexible spatial, digital, and institutional architectures transform natural functional changes into artificial handicaps and social marginalization. Furthermore, social determinants – such as lifelong allostatic load, socioeconomic status, and systemic ageism – directly modulate the trajectory of functional decline, widening the disparity between lifespan and healthspan. Addressing ageing within design frameworks requires moving away from static, youth-normative baselines toward continuum-based, adaptive environments and inclusive systems that accommodate sensory, cognitive, and physical transformations across all life stages, fostering autonomy, dignity, and civic participation.

References:
Coleman, R. (2001). Designing for our future selves. In: Preiser, W.F.E. & Ostroff, E. (eds.). Universal design handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. pp. 4.1-4.18.
Crimmins, E.M. (2015). Lifespan and healthspan: Past, present, and future. The Gerontologist, 55 (6), 901-911. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv130
Iwarsson, S. & Ståhl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts leading towards formalisation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25 (2), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/dre.25.2.57.66
World Health Organization. (2015). World report on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Ageism: In social gerontology, critical sociology, and public health, Ageism refers to the complex, pervasive, and structural phenomenon encompassing stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination directed toward individuals or collectives based on chronological age. First formalized by Robert N. Butler, the construct evolved from an individualistic focus into a tripartite socio-psychological model encompassing cognitive (stereotypes), affective (paternalistic or resentful prejudice), and behavioral (discrimination) dimensions. While affecting populations across the lifespan, ageism operates predominantly through the Stereotype Content Model, positioning older adults in the high-warmth/low-competence quadrant that generates patronizing pity, and through prescriptive frameworks regulating intergenerational resource distribution. Under Stereotype Embodiment Theory, culturally internalized ageist tropes transform over time into self-stereotypes, triggering psychological, behavioral, and physiological stress responses that reduce longevity and functional health. Positioned by the World Health Organization as a major social determinant of health, ageism intersects with gender – producing gendered ageism and aesthetic penalties – and extends into socio-technical domains as digital and algorithmic ageism, where biased datasets and youth-centric design systematically exclude older users across physical, digital, and civic spheres.

References:
Ayalon, L. & Tesch-Römer, C. (Eds.). (2018). Contemporary perspectives on ageism. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8
Butler, R.N. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9 (4_Part_1), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/9.4_Part_1.243
Cuddy, A.J.C. & Fiske, S.T. (2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons. In Nelson, T.D. (ed.). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. pp. 3-26.
Levy, B.R. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (6), 332-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01662.x
World Health Organization. (2021). Global report on ageism. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Assistive Technology: In Disability Studies, Biomedical Engineering, Human-Computer Interaction, and Occupational Therapy, Assistive Technology (AT) refers to an integrated ecosystem encompassing assistive products, digital software, and the socio-technical systems and services required for their provision, customization, and maintenance. Standardized through international frameworks such as ISO 9999:2022 and WHO global initiatives, assistive technology spans physical devices, mobility aids, communication software, and screen readers engineered to maintain or enhance human functioning, independence, and social participation. Crucially, contemporary AT theory distinguishes between an isolated assistive product and successful technology provision. A technically functional device may result in abandonment if misaligned with a user’s environmental context, personal goals, or routine activities. Effective provision depends on a supportive infrastructure, including professional assessment, user training, maintenance services, and accessible educational or workplace environments. Within inclusive design paradigms, accessible mainstream products and specialized assistive technologies operate as complementary forces, requiring system architects to prioritize interoperability, affordability, personal choice, and contextual adaptability.

References:
International Organization for Standardization. (2022). Assistive products — Classification and terminology (ISO 9999:2022). Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/72464.html
World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund. (2022). Global report on assistive technology. World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049451

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Average User (or Standard User): In Design Studies, ergonomics, and human-computer interaction, the Average User (or Standardized User) defines an epistemological abstraction and normative user model constructed by averaging human physical, cognitive, and sensory attributes across a population baseline. Originating from industrial ergonomics and classical user-centered design, this construct was historically employed to simplify product architecture and streamline interaction by targeting a statistical mean. However, critical design theory and inclusive design systematically deconstruct the myth of the “average human being”, demonstrating that multidimensional human capabilities resist reduction to a uniform baseline. Relying on an average user baseline enforces ability biases and “ego-design” practices, resulting in widespread structural mismatches and systematic design exclusion for individuals whose capabilities diverge from the statistical norm. Consequently, contemporary socio-technical frameworks reframe the user model from a static, monolithic biological ideal into a dynamic interaction spectrum, replacing rigid standardization with adaptive, context-aware, and capability-driven design approaches.

References:
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO Standard No. 9241-210:2019). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Mountain View, CA: Academic Press.
Rich, E. (1979). User modeling via stereotypes. Cognitive Science, 3 (4), 329-354. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0304_3
Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness. New York, NY: HarperOne.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Co-Design: In Design Studies, Design Research, and frameworks linked to Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), Co-Design (or Collaborative Design) refers to an epistemological, methodological, and political paradigm in which end-users, local communities, and historically marginalized stakeholders participate as equal partners, endowed with full epistemic authority and decision-making power across the entire design lifecycle. Evolving from the Scandinavian tradition of Participatory Design, co-design transcends traditional User-Centered Design – which often reduces participants to passive subjects of observation – by centering the exploratory “fuzzy front-end”, where collective creativity and lived experience guide problem framing and opportunity identification. Within Design for EDI, co-design serves as an essential methodology to dismantle power asymmetries and challenge the matrix of domination. Through generative toolkits, storytelling, and reflexive facilitation, co-design redistributes decision-making power and re-centers human diversity as a primary creative catalyst. Consequently, inclusion shifts from a retroactive compliance requirement to a mechanism of procedural justice, repositioning the designer from a monolithic expert to a reflective facilitator of collective liberation and social transformation.

References:
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Grimaldi, S., Lai, V.W.K., Shailendra, M. & Zheng, Y. (2024). Inclusive Design Framework: EDI in the Workplace Actions and Implementations. London: University of the Arts London. https://doi.org/10.58129/kn1n-m289
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478
Sanders, E.B.-N. & Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4 (1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Sanders, E.B.-N. & Stappers, P.J. (2014). From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: Three slices in time. Interactions, 21 (6), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670616

Editor:
Emilio Rossi
Sarah Jane Cipressi

Cognitive Load: In Cognitive Psychology, Instructional Design, Human-Computer Interaction, and Ergonomics, Cognitive Load refers to the total volume of mental effort imposed on human working memory during learning, problem-solving, and task execution. Developed by John Sweller and grounded in working memory models, Cognitive Load Theory analyzes how information processing demands interact with long-term memory structures and interface design. The framework distinguishes intrinsic cognitive load (inherent task complexity) from extraneous cognitive load (unnecessary friction generated by poor presentation, fragmented navigation, or ambiguous affordances), alongside germane processing dedicated to schema construction. Cognitive load is dynamic and relational, shifting according to user expertise: long-term memory schemas enable experts to process complex data efficiently, whereas novices require structured segmentation, progressive disclosure, and clear visual hierarchy. In interaction and inclusive design, managing cognitive load requires eliminating extraneous mental friction – such as visual clutter and redundant instructions – without compromising essential domain complexity. Rather than inferring cognitive capacity from rigid diagnostic categories, inclusive design systematically evaluates cognitive load within real-world task contexts, optimizing information density to preserve user autonomy and performance.

References:
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (11), 417-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A.D. & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 8, 47-89. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Oviatt, S. (2006). Human-centered design meets cognitive load theory: Designing interfaces that help people think. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. New York, NY: ACM. pp. 871-880. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180639.1180831
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Cognitive Walkthrough: In Human-Computer Interaction, Usability Engineering, and Usability Inspection Methods, a Cognitive Walkthrough refers to a theory-based inspection method evaluating how intuitively first-time users learn to perform tasks through active exploration. Developed by Cathleen Wharton and colleagues, the method requires evaluators to step sequentially through a defined task, analyzing four core cognitive questions: whether the user will try to achieve the right effect, notice the correct action, associate the control with the intended goal, and recognize positive feedback. Walkthroughs rely on explicit operational profiles of target users, detailed action sequences, and context models. Evaluators document predicted breakdowns by scrutinizing assumptions regarding perception, language, attention, and mental models. In inclusive design, cognitive walkthroughs – including web adaptations such as Cognitive Walkthrough for the Web (CWW) – serve to interrogate implicit normative assumptions, surfacing barriers related to cognitive diversity, language proficiency, and sensory processing. Rather than replacing empirical user testing or direct co-design, cognitive walkthroughs generate structured, step-traceable hypotheses regarding potential interaction barriers prior to user deployment.

References:
Blackmon, M.H., Polson, P.G., Kitajima, M. & Lewis, C. (2002). Cognitive walkthrough for the web. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM. pp. 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1145/503376.503459
Polson, P.G., Lewis, C., Rieman, J. & Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36 (5), 741-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(92)90039-N
Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C. & Polson, P. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide. In: Nielsen, J. & Mack, R.L. (eds.). Usability inspection methods. New York, NY: Wiley. pp. 105-140.

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Colonialism: In political philosophy, critical geography, architectural history, and socio-technical studies, Colonialism (or Coloniality of Space and Power) refers to a pervasive practice of domination through which a foreign power executes the political subjugation, economic exploitation, population transfer, and spatial control of a territory and its indigenous population. Etymologically rooted in the Latin colonus (farmer or settler), colonialism differs from imperialism (imperium, command) by enforcing direct territorial occupation, structural dispossession, and the systematic re-engineering of built environments. Ideologically legitimized by Enlightenment developmentalism, stadial theories of progress, and paternalistic civilizing missions, colonial rule operationalizes spatial technologies – such as orthogonal grids, hygienic zoning, total institutions, and cartographic erasure – to render territories legible and governable. Far from being a static historical era, colonialism generates a durable “coloniality of power, knowledge, and space” that persists beyond formal independence. The colonial built environment functions as an active infrastructure of racialized and gendered segregation; yet, as postcolonial and decolonial theory demonstrate, these impositional spaces remain continuously contested through subaltern agency, hybridity, and spatial reappropriation. Dismantling colonial legacies requires deconstructing Eurocentric universalism and spatial hegemony across physical, digital, and institutional domains.

References:
Chattopadhyay, S. (2005). Representing Calcutta: Modernity, nationalism, and the colonial uncanny. London: Routledge.
Demissie, F. (ed.). (2012). Colonial architecture and urbanism in Africa: Intertwined and contested histories. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Kohn, M. & Reddy, K. (2023). Colonialism. In: Zalta, E.N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/colonialism/
Said, E.W. (1979). Orientalism. New York, NY: Random House.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Curb-Cut Effect: In Design Studies and critical disability theory, the Curb-Cut Effect refers to the socio-technical phenomenon wherein design interventions initially created to accommodate specific marginalized groups – such as individuals with physical disabilities – ultimately generate unexpected, widespread benefits for the entire population. Epistemologically, it refutes the zero-sum view of equity, proving that targeted inclusion yields positive externalities that cascade out and up across society. Historically rooted in the civil rights activism of Ed Roberts, Michael Pachovas, and the Independent Living Movement in 1970s Berkeley – which culminated in the Americans with Disabilities Act – the physical flattening of sidewalk curbs for wheelchair users demonstrated an unprecedented force multiplier, seamlessly benefiting parents with strollers, workers with delivery carts, travelers with luggage, and cyclists. Theoretically, this phenomenon illustrates design resonance, where environmental accommodations for disabled cohorts coincide with situational demands of the general public. Within inclusive and universal design frameworks, the Curb-Cut Effect provides the primary empirical, ethical, and economic rationale for designing for extreme capability limits rather than the statistical average, demonstrating that solving for the edges of human variability produces more resilient, adaptive, and usable environments for all.

References:
Blackwell, A.G. (2016). The Curb-Cut Effect. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 15 (1), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.48558/YVMS-CC96
Clarkson, P.J. & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
Steinfeld, E. & Maisel, J.L. (2012). Universal Design: Creating inclusive environments. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Design Exclusion: In Design Studies and critical design theory, Design Exclusion (also conceptualized as exclusion by or through design) refers to the structural phenomenon wherein artifacts, built environments, and digital interfaces and services systematically restrict or deny access to users because their physical, sensory, or cognitive demands exceed human capabilities. Moving beyond accidental oversight, exclusion occurs when creators uncritically adopt normative user baselines, ability biases, or “ego-design” practices that project their own physical and neurotypical attributes onto the population. At a socio-technical level, this form of exclusion materializes as structural mismatches at points of interaction, transforming functional variability into artificial handicaps, spatial barriers, and automated marginalization. Grounded in relational disability frameworks and critical access studies, design exclusion is not a biological inevitability, but the direct consequence of exclusionary design choices that enforce dependency, produce psycho-emotional disablism, and restrict civic agency. Addressing design exclusion requires shifting from rigid standardization toward proactive, user-led co-design methodologies that prioritize distributive fairness, capability approaches, and adaptive socio-technical systems across human lifespan variations.

References:
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design: Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3162-S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
Clarkson, P.J. & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
DePoy, E. & Gilson, S. (2010). Disability by design. Review of Disability Studies, 6 (3), 53-62.
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Keates, S. & Clarkson, P.J. (2003). Countering design exclusion: An introduction to inclusive design. London: Springer.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Design for EDI (Design for Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion): Design for Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) refers to a reflexive design culture, an educational process, and an informed creative practice that systematically operates to achieve the interconnected levels of equality, diversity, and inclusion across multiple socio-technical dimensions through holistic, cooperative processes. Emerging as a pivotal paradigm aligned with global sustainability mandates and human rights frameworks, Design for EDI bridges social justice theories with concrete design practice. Methodologically, it replaces reductionist “average user” metrics and “ego-design” practices with deliberative, user-led co-design frameworks that position historically excluded communities as lead figures endowed with fundamental epistemic authority. At the systemic level, Design for EDI operates across the dialectical triad of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: operationalizing distributive justice and fair usability distribution, recognizing human variability as an ontological norm, and structuring enabling, accessible socio-technical ecosystems. Rather than treating social requirements as technical constraints or regulatory burdens, this paradigm transforms artifacts, interfaces, and product-service systems into active drivers of democratic belonging, fair agency, and sustainable human flourishing across public domains.

References:
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design: Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3162-S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2018). Just design. Design Studies, 54, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.001
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lid, I.M. (2014). Universal Design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36 (16), 1344-1349. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.931472
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478
Subrahmanian, E., Reich, Y. & Krishnan, S. (2020). We are not users: Dialogues, diversity, and design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Design Justice: In Design Studies, socio-technical research, and critical theory, Design Justice refers to an analytical framework, ethical practice, and social movement concerned with how the design of artifacts, digital platforms, interactive systems, and built environments systematically distributes risks, harms, and benefits across diverse populations. Rooted in Black feminist thought, intersectionality, and the disability justice movement, Design Justice examines how design choices reproduce or challenge the matrix of domination – the interlocking systems of white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, and settler colonialism. Moving beyond the well-meaning assumptions of Universal Design and User-Centered Design approaches, this paradigm demonstrates that design affordances are never neutral, reframing biased technological defaults and disaffordances as structural microaggressions. Methodologically, Design Justice integrates procedural and distributive equity, asserting that those most directly impacted by design decisions must lead, own, and control the creative process according to the principle “Nothing About Us Without Us”. By shifting the designer’s role from an expert authority to an accountable facilitator, Design Justice treats community-based lived experience as primary epistemic knowledge, transforming design into a collaborative practice for collective liberation and social transformation.

References:
Costanza-Chock, S. (2018). Design Justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. In: Storni, C., Leahy, K., McMahon, M., Lloyd, P. & Bohemia, E. (eds.). Design as a catalyst for change – DRS International Conference 2018, 25-28 June, Limerick, Ireland. pp. 529-540. S.l.: Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.679
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001
Das, M., Ostrowski, A.K., Ben-David, S., Roeder, G.J., Kimura, K., D’Ignazio, C., Breazeal, C. & Verma, A. (2023). Auditing design justice: The impact of social movements on design pedagogy at a technology institution. Design Studies, 86, Article 101183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2023.101183
Design Justice Network. (2018). Design Justice Network Principles. https://designjustice.org/principles
Goodwill, M., Bendor, R. & van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2021). Beyond good intentions: Towards a power literacy framework for service designers. International Journal of Design, 15 (3), 45–59.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Disabling Design: In Design Studies, urban sociology, legal theory, and Human-Computer Interaction, Disabling Design refers to the theoretical, methodological, and material framework through which spatial, architectural, infrastructural, and digital configurations actively produce and exacerbate states of disability. Moving beyond the medical model – which mislocates functional limitations within individual biology – and refuting the view of environmental barriers as mere technical flaws, Disabling Design grounds itself in the Social Model of Disability. It demonstrates that disablism is systematically generated when socio-technical environments naturalize an ableist “normate” user baseline, transforming human variability into an induced state of operational disadvantage and social exclusion. At the physical level, Disabling Design manifests through reductionist architectural practices that relegate accessibility to a bureaucratic afterthought, creating structural “design apartheid”. This extends into urban planning via architectural regulation and hostile design, where defensive features enforce spatial control. In the digital domain, it operates through accessibility non-compliance and deceptive dark patterns that exploit cognitive friction. Dismantling disabling design requires Critical Access Studies and crip technoscience paradigms that replace retroactive retrofitting with user-led co-design, positioning disabled communities as lead epistemic authorities in socio-technical space.

References:
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt79d
Hall, P. & Imrie, R. (1999). Architectural Practices and Disabling Design in the Built Environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26 (3), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.1068/b260409
Imrie, R. & Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. London: Routledge.
Rosenberger, R. (2020). Hostile design and the materiality of surveillance. In: Wiltse, H. (ed.). Relating to things: Design, technology and the artificial. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts. pp. 135-150. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350124288.ch-007
Schindler, S. (2015). Architectural exclusion: Discrimination and segregation through physical design of the built environment. The Yale Law Journal, 124 (6), 1934-2024.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Diversity: In socio-political theory, critical disability studies, and socio-technical paradigms, diversity refers to the intrinsic, non-negotiable condition of human variability across biological, psychophysical, cognitive, cultural, gender, racial, and socioeconomic dimensions. Rather than treating differences as statistical deviations or medical deficits relative to a standardized norm, contemporary scholarship conceptualizes diversity as an ontological norm and the primary expression of human plurality. This perspective deconstructs the historical equation of normality with able-bodiedness, asserting that human capacity fluctuates dynamically across time and contexts. At a sociological and material level, diversity operates through complex intersectionality and socio-technical modes of ordering, wherein overlapping identities continuously shape how individuals interact with institutions, environments, and platforms. Under the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework, human functioning is defined through a universal bio-psycho-social continuum, where environmental contexts act as restrictive barriers or enabling facilitators. Acknowledging diversity requires shifting from rigid, one-size-fits-all models toward pluralistic frameworks that honor human agency, epistemic authority, and social justice. Ultimately, diversity serves as a vital catalyst for democratic cohesion and ethical innovation.

References:
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Moser, I. (2005). On becoming disabled and articulating alternatives: The multiple modes of ordering disability and their interferences. Cultural Studies, 19 (6), 667-700. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380500365648
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478
Subrahmanian, E., Reich, Y., & Krishnan, S. (2020). We Are Not Users: Dialogues, Diversity, and Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Alessia Brischetto

Diversity in Design: In Design Studies and applied methodologies, Diversity in Design (or Design for Diversity) represents the operational, methodological, and ethical translation of human plurality into a primary catalyst for systemic innovation. Moving beyond the theoretical acknowledgment of human variability, Design for Diversity explicitly rejects standardized “average user” paradigms and “ego-design” practices, wherein designers uncritically project their own capabilities and perspectives onto the population. Methodologically, it replaces rigid, one-size-fits-all approaches with deliberative, user-led, and participatory co-design frameworks, positioning diverse user cohorts – particularly historically excluded communities – as essential figures endowed with fundamental epistemic authority in the design process. At the material level, Design for Diversity focuses on developing flexible, modular, and adaptive artifacts, digital interfaces, environments, and product-service systems capable of responding to the dynamic bio-psycho-social continuum of user capabilities across the life-course. Rather than viewing diversity as an ergonomic constraint or regulatory burden, this practice treats human differences as inventive virtues that mitigate environmental mismatches, ensure distributive fairness, and foster democratic belonging across socio-technical ecosystems.

References:
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design: Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3162-S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
Clarkson, P.J. & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478
Subrahmanian, E., Reich, Y. & Krishnan, S. (2020). We are not users: Dialogues, diversity, and design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Alessia Brischetto

EDI (Equality, Diversity, Inclusion): In sociology, management studies, legal theory, and Design Studies, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) – frequently configured as DEI – refers to a multidisciplinary polyconcept designed to analyze, interrogate, and reconfigure structural inequalities and exclusionary mechanisms across institutional and spatial domains. Grounded in human rights charters, EDI moves beyond passive legal compliance toward proactive systemic transformation. Its architecture rests on three interdependent constructs: Equality (the normative baseline of universal dignity, distinguishing formal rights from substantive equity), Diversity (the empirical spectrum of primary demographic categories and deep-level human variations), and Inclusion (the intentional restructuring of governance to grant substantive agency). Epistemologically, EDI synthesizes functionalist management approaches – viewing heterogeneity as a catalyst for innovation – with critical diversity studies that deconstruct power dynamics through intersectionality and critical literacy. In design theory and higher education pedagogy, EDI operationalizes social justice by shifting from retroactive compliance to structural co-creation, ensuring physical spaces, digital systems, and curricula foster equitable agency and planetary resilience.

References:
Bendl, R., Bleijenbergh, I., Henttonen, E. & Mills, A.J. (eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199658213.001.0001
Design Council. (n.d.). Equality, diversity & inclusion. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/who-we-are/about-us/equality-diversity-inclusion/
Klarsfeld, A., Nkomo, S., Taksa, L., Bender, A.-F. & Cachat-Rosset, G. (eds.). (2024). Encyclopedia of equality, equity, diversity and inclusion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800886377
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478
Vertovec, S. (ed.). (2015). Routledge international handbook of diversity studies. London: Routledge.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Emotional Design for Inclusion: In Design Studies, Affective Sciences, Human-Computer Interaction, and Disability Studies, Emotional Design for Inclusion refers to an experiential design orientation that integrates affective experience, symbolic meaning, and identity into the creation of inclusive products, services, and environments. Rather than a rigid rubric, it applies experience-oriented frameworks to analyze how aesthetic choices, material affordances, and interaction patterns evoke emotional responses across diverse social contexts. Grounded in product experience theory, this paradigm addresses three interrelated dimensions – aesthetic experience, attribution of meaning, and emotional response – recognizing that affective appraisals vary across individuals and situational contexts. Crucially, emotional design for inclusion bridges material design choices with social relationships, interrogating how product aesthetics foster dignity and self-confidence or, conversely, induce stigma and psycho-emotional disablism. Drawing on critical disability studies, it highlights how specialized assistive devices or poorly contextualized products often communicate unwanted social identities or enforced dependency. Consequently, inclusive emotional design requires participatory research with diverse cohorts, acknowledging that emotional qualities such as reassurance or desirability cannot be prescriptively assumed but must be collaboratively evaluated.

References:
Desmet, P. & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1 (1), 57-66.
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norman, D.A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Reeve, D. (2012). Psycho-emotional disablism: The missing link? In: Watson, N., Roulstone, A. Thomas, C. (eds.). Routledge handbook of disability studies. London: Routledge. pp. 78-92.

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto
Ester Iacono

Enabling: In Design Studies, environmental gerontology, Disability Studies, and socio-technical theory, Enabling (or Enabling Contexts and Environments) refers to a theoretical, epistemological, and design paradigm centered on the capacity of physical, spatial, and institutional contexts to actively sustain human agency, autonomy, and social participation across diverse functional variations. Functioning as the direct conceptual antithesis to disabling, enabling reframes capability from an intrinsic biological attribute into an emergent, relational property generated at the intersection of individual capacities and environmental demands. While disabling environments enforce restrictive baselines that transform human variability into induced dependency, enabling frameworks systematically reduce socio-material friction. Grounded in ecological person-environment fit models and the Social Model of Disability, enabling environments calibrate spatial and sensory press to preserve competence and well-being. Within the Capability Approach, enabling design operates as a positive environmental conversion factor, removing structural barriers so individuals can convert resources into substantive freedoms. Operationalized through Universal Design and Inclusive Design, enabling environments replace paternalistic care with empowering affordances, converting human diversity into a foundation for equitable citizenship.

References:
Imrie, R. (2014). Designing inclusive environments and the significance of universal design. In: Swain, J., French, S. Barnes, C. & Thomas, C. (eds.). Disabling barriers: Enabling environments (3rd Edition). London: SAGE Publications. pp. 287-296.
Robeyns, I. & Byskov, M.F. (2023). The capability approach. In: Zalta, E.N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/
Steinfeld, E. & Danford, G.S. (eds.). (1999). Enabling environments: Measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4841-6

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Equality: In socio-political theory, human rights frameworks, and distributive justice paradigms, equality refers to the fundamental principle that all individuals possess equal moral worth, inherent dignity, and non-negotiable rights to social, economic, and political participation. Contemporary critical scholarship distinguishes between formal equality – the uniform provision of rights regardless of individual circumstances – and substantive equality, which addresses structural, historical, and environmental disadvantages to achieve equitable outcomes. Grounded in the capability approach and theories of distributive justice, substantive equality recognizes the “conversion problem”: individuals possess varying capacities to transform resources into meaningful life choices due to physical, social, or environmental factors. Consequently, achieving true parity requires removing systemic barriers, dismantling oppressive structures, and redistributing social agency. At an institutional level, equality operates as both a normative commitment and a regulatory framework, requiring accessible environments, non-discriminatory policies, and inclusive socio-technical systems. Rather than demanding standardized treatment, substantive equality fosters democratic citizenship and human flourishing by recognizing plurality, ensuring fair usability distribution, and accommodating human variability across the life-course.

References:
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design: Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3162-S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
Lid, I.M. (2014). Universal Design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36 (16), 1344-1349. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.931472
Nussbaum, M.C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). New York, NY: United Nations.

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Alessia Brischetto

Equality in Design (Design for Equality): In Design Studies and applied methodologies, Equality in Design (or Design for Equality) translates the ethical and socio-political principles of distributive justice into concrete material, spatial, and digital practices. Rather than pursuing formal equality through rigid, “one-size-fits-all” standardization – which often inadvertently reinforces exclusionary baselines – Design for Equality focuses on achieving substantive equality by actively redistributing socio-technical agency, economic power, and spatial access. Methodologically, it resolves the inherent paradoxes of inclusive design by applying fairness frameworks, such as Rawlsian distributive justice and the capability approach, to prioritize the needs of historically marginalized and excluded communities. At an operational level, Design for Equality seeks to eliminate structural mismatches and hostile environmental demands, ensuring that artifacts, interfaces, and public spaces do not disadvantage users based on physical, cognitive, sensory, or socioeconomic variations. Rooted in critical spatial tactics – such as feminist co-design, participatory technical aid, and decolonial design justice – this paradigm transforms human variability from an ergonomic constraint into an engine for democratic innovation, social justice, and fair participation across public domains.

References:
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design: Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3162-S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Matrix. (1984). Making space: Women and the man-made environment. London: Pluto Press.
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478

Edited by:
Emilio Rossi
Alessia Brischetto

European Accessibility Act: In European Law, Public Policy, Information Systems, and Design Management, the European Accessibility Act (Directive EU 2019/882) refers to a harmonized legislative framework establishing common accessibility requirements for key products and services across the European Union internal market. Encompassing computing hardware, operating systems, self-service terminals, electronic communications, consumer banking, e-books, and e-commerce, the Directive aligns accessibility specifications to eliminate trade barriers and foster digital inclusion. Generally applicable from June 2025, its provisions distinguish hardware products from digital services, mandating accessible user interfaces, operational information, and support systems. The Directive operationalizes market compliance by assigning legal obligations to economic operators across the supply chain, incorporating conformity assessment procedures, CE marking, and market surveillance. To balance economic feasibility, it includes specific provisions for service-providing microenterprises alongside clauses regarding fundamental alteration and disproportionate burden. Rather than operating as an isolated technical checklist, the European Accessibility Act links technical standards – such as EN 301 549 – with statutory obligations, positioning accessibility as a mandatory legal and architectural baseline for economic participation.

References:
European Commission. (2022). European Accessibility Act: Q&A. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1202
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services. Official Journal of the European Union, L 151, 70-115. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/882/oj
European Telecommunications Standards Institute, European Committee for Standardization & European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. (2026). Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services (EN 301 549 V4.1.1). https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/04.01.01_60/en_301549v040101p.pdf
Ferri, D. & Favalli, S. (2018). Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities in the European Union: Paving the Road to Social Inclusion. Societies, 8 (2), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8020040

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Functional Diversity: In Design Studies, ergonomics, and critical disability theory, functional diversity conceptualizes human capability not as a binary division between “able-bodied” and “disabled” individuals, but as a continuous, dynamic spectrum of functional variation across sensory, motor, and cognitive domains. Evolving beyond the historical ICIDH medical taxonomy – which categorized “handicap” as an individual deficit resulting from impairment – functional diversity reflects an ontological norm intrinsic to the human lifespan. Grounded in the WHO bio-psycho-social ICF framework, the relational model of disability, and the Diversity Model, this paradigm decouples human dignity from productive capacity, locating functional limitations within the interactive disjuncture between individual capabilities and environmental demands rather than within personal biology. At an operational level, replacing stigmatizing medical labels with functional diversity enables human-centered and inclusive design methodologies to reframe capability variations as ergonomic parameters. Rather than enforcing normative standardizations, Design for Functional Diversity fosters flexible, adaptive, and enabling socio-technical systems that eliminate environmental barriers, accommodating an ecosystem of functionings. Ultimately, functional diversity affirms human plurality as an inventive catalyst for equitable design.

References:
Clarkson, P.J. & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
DePoy, E. & Gilson, S. (2010). Disability by design. Review of Disability Studies, 6 (3), 53-62.
Lid, I.M. (2014). Universal Design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36 (16), 1344-1349. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.931472
Palacios, A.,& Romañach, J. (2006). El modelo de la diversidad: La Bioética y los Derechos Humanos como herramientas para alcanzar la plena dignidad en la diversidad funcional. S.l.: Ediciones Diversitas-AIES.
World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Heuristic Evaluation (or Usability Heuristics): In Human-Computer Interaction, Industrial Design, Ergonomics, and Usability Engineering, Heuristic Evaluation refers to a discount inspection method wherein evaluators systematically examine an artifact, physical product, or user interface against established interaction principles (heuristics) to identify usability and physical interaction breakdowns. Originating in software usability through Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich’s work and extended across physical design and human factors engineering, the method relies on independent inspection by multiple experts, whose observations are consolidated and prioritized by severity. The evaluation documents the location, severity, and operational nature of each defect, mapping physical affordance errors, cognitive friction, or control mismatches to underlying principles such as feedback, consistency, error prevention, and user control. In inclusive design, heuristic evaluation acts as an initial diagnostic filter across both physical and digital domains but must be complemented by accessibility requirements and direct user testing. Crucially, usability heuristics and accessibility standards – such as physical accessibility codes or WCAG criteria – address distinct interaction layers and are not functionally interchangeable. Because heuristic inspection reflects chosen principles and evaluator expertise, its findings generate structured hypotheses that inform, rather than replace, empirical user research with diverse cohorts.

References:
International Organization for Standardization. (2020). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 110: Interaction principles (ISO 9241-110:2020). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Nielsen, J. & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM. pp. 249-256. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281
Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM. pp. 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191729
World Wide Web Consortium. (n.d.). Involving users in evaluating web accessibility. https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/involving-users/

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Human Factors and Ergonomics: In Applied Sciences, Engineering, Systems Design, Design Studies, and Occupational Health, Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) refers to a foundational scientific discipline and design practice examining interactions among human beings and other elements of a system to optimize human well-being and overall system performance. Adopted by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), HFE spans three interconnected domains: physical ergonomics (anthropometry, biomechanics, posture, and physical workload), cognitive ergonomics (perception, memory, decision-making, neurodiversity, and mental workload), and organizational ergonomics (sociotechnical systems, work design, macro-ergonomics, and governance). Grounded in general systems theory, HFE reframes operational friction, strain, and error not as individual physical or cognitive deficits, but as structural mismatches between systemic demands and human capabilities. Crucially, when interrogated through an Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) framework, “Inclusive HFE” systematically dismantles the legacy “myth of the average user” and the reductive reliance on standard 5^th-95^th percentile anthropometric ranges. Historical standardization around normative, able-bodied male body types and uniform cognitive baselines inherently engineers systemic exclusion for individuals at the extremities of human variability. Inclusive HFE shifts the paradigm from rigid standardization toward dynamic adaptability, universal accessibility, and equitable spatial and task distribution. By evaluating intersecting physical, sensory, neurodivergent, and situational capabilities alongside socio-environmental constraints, inclusive ergonomics reconfigures system architectures to guarantee that workplaces, products, public infrastructure, and digital ecosystems accommodate the full spectrum of human variation, fostering substantive agency, dignity, and occupational justice.

References:
Bridger, R.S. (2017). Introduction to human factors and ergonomics (4th Ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Clarkson, P.J., Coleman, R., Keates, S. & Lebbon, C. (Eds.). (2003). Inclusive design: Design for the whole population. London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0001-0
International Ergonomics Association. (n.d.). What is ergonomics (HFE)? https://iea.cc/about/what-is-ergonomics/
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11:2018). Geneva: ISO.
Persad, U., Langdon, P. & Clarkson, J. (2007). Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6, 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-007-0083-y

Editors:
Alessia Brischetto
Emilio Rossi

Human-Centered Design: In Human-Computer Interaction, Usability Engineering, Ergonomics, and Design Studies, Human-Centred Design (HCD) refers to an iterative framework for interactive systems and product development grounded in an explicit understanding of users, tasks, and socio-technical environments. Standardized through ISO 9241-210:2019, standard HCD structures development around four core activities: understanding context of use, specifying user requirements, producing design solutions, and evaluating prototypes against empirical criteria. However, critical EDI scholarship highlights that traditional HCD does not automatically guarantee social equity or accessibility: when research methodologies and evaluative baselines rely on normative user averages, standard HCD risks reproducing systemic exclusion and marginalization. Operationalized through an EDI lens, inclusive HCD transforms passive user consultation into substantive agency and participatory co-design. It reconfigures requirement specification and prototype evaluation to explicitly accommodate intersectional human variability, neurodiversity, and lived experiences of disability. By establishing rigorous empirical traceability between marginalized user feedback and architectural revisions, inclusive HCD interrogates power dynamics, dismantles structural barriers, and aligns system lifecycles with equity, dignity, and social justice.

References:
Gould, J.D. & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28 (3), 300-311. https://doi.org/10.1145/3166.3170
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11:2018). Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO 9241-210:2019). Geneva: ISO.
Norman, D.A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.
World Wide Web Consortium. (n.d.). Involving users in evaluating web accessibility. https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/involving-users/

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Inclusion: In socio-political theory, human rights frameworks, and critical sociology, inclusion refers to a dynamic, relational process and systemic condition through which all individuals – regardless of physical, sensory, cognitive, cultural, or socioeconomic variations – are actively enabled to participate fully in social, economic, and political life. Moving beyond passive tolerance, mere physical integration, or assimilation into unadapted environments, contemporary scholarship conceptualizes inclusion as an institutional transformation that restructures power dynamics, removes systemic barriers, and fosters genuine belonging and agency. Grounded in capability approaches and social justice paradigms, inclusion operates dialectically against social exclusion, confronting the multi-dimensional mechanisms – such as capability deprivations, relational exclusions, and spatial marginalization – that deny individuals access to decision-making arenas and shared resources. Rather than expecting marginalized groups to conform to normative structures, true inclusion demands the proactive redesign of societal systems, policies, and material environments to accommodate human plurality as an ontological norm. Ultimately, inclusion serves as a vital indicator of democratic legitimacy, structural equity, and sustainable human development.

References:
Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE).
Crisp, B.R. & Taket, A. (2020). Sustaining social inclusion. London: Routledge.
Lid, I.M. (2014). Universal Design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36 (16), 1344-1349. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.931472
Sen, A. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny (Social Development Papers No. 1). Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Steinfeld, E. & Maisel, J.L. (2012). Universal Design: Creating inclusive environments. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Alessia Brischetto

Inclusion in Design: In Design Studies and applied methodologies, Inclusion in Design (or Design for Inclusion) conceptualizes inclusion as a reflexive creative culture, an educational process, and a cooperative practice aimed at generating systemic, democratic outcomes across socio-technical ecosystems. Moving beyond mere compliance with accessibility standards or physical integration, Design for Inclusion focuses on the cultural and methodological processes employed by designers to ensure that every individual feels structurally welcomed, valued, and safe within a specific context. Methodologically, it replaces paternalistic and “ego-design” approaches with user-led, participatory, and co-design frameworks, positioning historically excluded communities as primary experts of their lived experiences and co-creators of mainstream solutions. At the material and systemic level, Design for Inclusion seeks to eliminate environmental mismatches by offering a portfolio of flexible, adaptable, and customizable design responses rather than imposing rigid, “one-size-fits-all” solutions. By embedding capability approaches and distributive justice frameworks, this paradigm transforms artifacts and environments from static commercial products into active enablers of social cohesion, equitable agency, and long-term societal well-being.

References:
Attaianese, E., Tosi, F. & Steffan, I.T. (2021). From accessibility to inclusion in people centered design. In: Black, N.L., Neumann, P.W. & Noy, I. (eds). Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021). Cham: Springer. pp. 359-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74605-6_45
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design: Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3162-S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
Clarkson, P.J. & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Alessia Brischetto

Inclusive Design: In Design Studies, ergonomics, and human-centered design, Inclusive Design is defined as a methodology and strategic framework aimed at designing mainstream products, services, environments, and interfaces to be accessible to and usable by as many people as reasonably possible, without requiring specialized adaptation or specialized redesign. Developed in the United Kingdom during the 1990s in response to demographic aging, social exclusion, and evolving disability rights, Inclusive Design expands traditional accessibility paradigms by reframing human variability as a catalyst for creative innovation rather than an ergonomic constraint. Methodologically, it analyzes the full spectrum of human capabilities across physical, sensory, and cognitive domains to counter “design exclusion” – the structural phenomenon wherein artifact demands exceed user capabilities. Rather than seeking a single static “universal” solution, Inclusive Design advocates for a portfolio of adaptable, customizable, and user-centered responses developed through participatory co-design and lived experience. Ultimately, Inclusive Design bridges commercial viability with social justice, ensuring that mainstream innovation actively mitigates environmental mismatches and fosters equitable agency, personal dignity, and democratic cohesion across socio-technical ecosystems.

References:
Bianchin, M. & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design: Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3162-S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
British Standards Institution. (2005). Design management systems – Part 6: Managing inclusive design – Guide (BS 7000-6:2005). London: BSI.
Clarkson, P.J. & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Keates, S. & Clarkson, P.J. (2003). Countering design exclusion: An introduction to inclusive design. London: Springer.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Inclusive Design Process: In Design Studies, the Inclusive Design Process refers to an iterative, multi-stage methodology structured to systematically analyze, manage, and minimize design exclusion throughout the product lifecycle. Moving beyond traditional linear product development, this process embeds human variability across sensory, physical, and cognitive domains into every stage of research, ideation, prototyping, and evaluation. Methodologically, it operationalizes cyclical frameworks – such as the BS 7000-6 standard, ISO 22458:2022, or EN 17161:2019 – structured around core phases: understanding capability-demand mismatches, exploring flexible design strategies, creating adaptive solutions, and evaluating usability with diverse user cohorts. Central to this process is the active engagement of people with lived experience, positioning excluded groups not as passive test subjects, but as essential co-designers endowed with epistemic authority. Operationally, it utilizes quantitative tools, such as exclusion matrices and capability calculators, alongside qualitative co-design techniques to establish multi-tier adaptability. Rather than aiming for a single static output, the process produces scalable portfolios of customizable artifacts, digital interfaces, and services that dynamically accommodate human capability variations across the lifespan.

References:
British Standards Institution. (2005). Design management systems – Part 6: Managing inclusive design – Guide (BS 7000-6:2005). London: BSI.
European Committee for Standardization. (2019). EN 17161:2019 design for all – Accessibility following a design for all approach in products, goods, and services – Extending the range of users. Brussels: CEN
International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO 22458:2022 consumer vulnerability – Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service. Geneva: ISO.
Persad, U., Langdon, P. & Clarkson, J. (2007). Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6, 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-007-0083-y

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Inclusive Environment: In Design Studies, ergonomics, special pedagogy, and organizational psychology, an Inclusive Environment refers to a multi-dimensional socio-technical architecture and systemic state engineered to accommodate human variability as an ontological norm. Moving beyond the clinical paradigm of individual deficit compensation and retroactive adjustment, an inclusive environment requires the proactive design and redesign of physical spaces, digital platforms, institutional policies, and cultural practices. At the material and spatial level, it operationalizes Universal and Inclusive Design principles as well as international standards to ensure barrier-free mobility, multisensory adaptability, and spatial flexibility, transforming physical structures into active enablers of autonomy. Digitally and pedagogically, it integrates flexible curricular and technical frameworks – such as Universal Design for Learning – that anticipate diverse cognitive, sensory, and learning profiles from their inception. Sociologically, an inclusive environment operates across organizational and community scales to cultivate psychological safety, balancing the fundamental human needs for belongingness and uniqueness. By eliminating environmental mismatches and structural barriers, inclusive environments convert human plurality into a catalyst for democratic participation, social equity, and collective well-being.

References:
Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE).
International Organization for Standardization. (2021). Building construction – Accessibility and usability of the built environment (ISO Standard No. 21542:2021). Geneva: ISO.
Mor Barak, M.E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39 (2), 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1035599
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K. & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37 (4), 1262-1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Steinfeld, E. & Maisel, J.L. (2012). Universal Design: Creating inclusive environments. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Sarah Jane Cipressi

Inclusive Language in UI Microcopy: In UX Writing, Human-Computer Interaction, Digital Accessibility, and Technical Communication, Inclusive Language in UI Microcopy refers to the practice of crafting clear, respectful, and non-presumptuous interface text – including buttons, labels, instructions, error messages, and form fields – that guides digital interaction. Grounded in UX writing methodologies and plain language principles, inclusive microcopy ensures that system guidance is readily understandable without embedding normative assumptions regarding users’ identities, gender, family structures, physical capabilities, or cultural circumstances. Operationally, inclusive microcopy requires balancing functional clarity with respectful phrasing: overly colloquial tone that obscures actionable next steps creates cognitive barriers, whereas precise language must avoid intrusive or exclusionary demographic assumptions. The practice demands systematic coordination across user interface text, terminology glossaries, localization workflows, and accessibility metadata (such as screen reader labels and ARIA attributes) to ensure semantic coherence across diverse assistive technologies. Rather than relying on mechanical word substitution, disability-inclusive communication respects user agency, context, and personal preference, while acknowledging that inclusive microcopy cannot compensate for underlying interaction flaws or discriminatory service architectures.

References:
International Organization for Standardization. (2023). Plain language – Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines (ISO 24495-1:2023). Geneva: ISO.
Lupton, E., Kafei, F., Tobias, J., Halstead, A., Sales, A., Xia, J. & Vergara, V. (2021). Extra bold: A feminist, inclusive, anti-racist, nonbinary field guide for graphic designers. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press
Podmajersky, T. (2019). Strategic Writing for UX: Drive Engagement, Conversion, and Retention with Every Word. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Redish, J. (2012). Letting go of the words: Writing web content that works (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
United Nations. (2022). Disability-inclusive communications guidelines. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/disability-inclusive_communications_guidelines_-_march_2022.pdf

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Inclusive Personas: In User Experience Design, Human-Centred Methodologies, and Inclusive Design, Inclusive Personas refers to research-grounded archetypal user representations constructed to surface potential exclusion, capability variations, and situational constraints throughout product development. Extending traditional persona models, inclusive personas expand design inquiries by framing human diversity through a continuum of permanent, temporary, and situational mismatches – a framework popularized by Microsoft’s Persona Spectrum. Rather than reducing individuals to static demographic categories or medical diagnoses, inclusive personas contextualize capability within specific tasks, interaction contexts, and environmental factors. Methodologically, inclusive personas establish transparent connections between empirical research, user goals, and interaction barriers. By contrasting dynamic scenarios across time and context, they highlight how an individual’s operational requirements fluctuate, preventing essentialist stereotypes. Crucially, inclusive personas function as generative reflection tools rather than statistical population models or substitute for authentic participation. When integrated into inclusive design workflows, they serve to expose implicit designer bias and guide contextual inquiry, while necessitating direct co-design and ongoing validation with individuals with lived experience.

References:
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Microsoft. (n.d.). Inclusive 101 guidebook. https://inclusive.microsoft.design/articles/inclusive-101-guidebook
Pruitt, J. & Adlin, T. (2005). The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Inclusive Product: In industrial design, ergonomics, software engineering, and Design Studies, an Inclusive Product (or Inclusive Design Artifact) refers to a mainstream artifact, digital interface, or socio-technical system engineered to be accessible, usable, and emotionally resonant for the broadest possible spectrum of human capabilities without inducing stigma or demanding segregated redesign. Standardized by the British Standards Institution (BS 7000-6) and expanded through human-centered engineering, the inclusive product rejects the epistemological myth of the “average user”, framing exclusion as a structural mismatch between environmental/product demands and human diversity. Analytically grounded in the Capability-Demand Model and population frameworks such as the Inclusion Pyramid, inclusive product design systematically quantifies and minimizes design exclusion across sensory, motor, and cognitive domains. Through paradigms like Design for Dynamic Diversity, inclusive products address age-related functional changes and transient situational constraints via flexible, multimodal affordances, while ensuring seamless interoperability with assistive technologies when specialized support is required. Moving beyond mere commercial market maximization, critical socio-technical perspectives and Design Justice demand that inclusive products incorporate participatory co-design and the lived experience of marginalized communities, transforming physical and digital artifacts into agents of equitable agency and social participation.

References:
British Standards Institution. (2005). Design management systems – Part 6: Managing inclusive design – Guide (BS 7000-6:2005). London: BSI.
Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S. & Lebbon, C. (eds.). (2003). Inclusive design: Design for the whole population. London: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0001-0
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Persad, U., Langdon, P. & Clarkson, J. (2007). Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6, 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-007-0083-y
Rossi, E. & Brischetto, A. (2024). Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ concept to design education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 16 (19), 8478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198478

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Inclusive Service: In Service Management, Transformative Service Research, Public Administration, and Design Studies, an Inclusive Service (or Service Inclusion) refers to a socio-technical system and design orientation engineered to guarantee equitable access, procedural fairness, and non-discriminatory participation across the service ecosystem. Emerging from Transformative Service Research and Public Service Logic, inclusive service challenges conventional models centered on the “average user” baseline, which systematically generate structural vulnerability and institutional exclusion. Analytically, it examines how structural conditions – such as governance models, pricing strategies, information systems, and territorial coverage – actively enable or restrict access, use, and benefit for diverse communities. Grounded in multi-level service design, it positions human variability as a primary catalyst for innovation and organizational resilience. Rather than proposing standardized solutions, this approach supports context-sensitive configurations that respond to local conditions, power relations, and development trajectories. Methodologically, inclusive service spans holistic user and citizen journeys, adaptive service logics, and participatory co-design, ensuring historically marginalized communities act as equal partners in resource integration and service governance, transforming public and private interactions into instruments of collective empowerment.

References:
Cipressi, S.J. (2026). Design of Inclusive Services for Inland Waterways Transport in Urban Areas. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Italy.
Fisk, R.P., Dean, A.M., Alkire, L., Joubert, A., Previte, J., Robertson, N. & Rosenbaum. M.S. (2018), Design for service inclusion: creating inclusive service systems by 2050. Journal of Service Management, 29 (5), 834-858. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2018-0121
Huan, Y., Arvola, M. & Holmlid, S.(2021) Three perspectives on inclusive Service Design: user-centred, adaptive systems, and service logics. In: Akama, Y., Fennessy, L., Harrington, S. & Farago, A. (eds.). ServDes 2020: Tensions, Paradoxes and Plurality, 2-5 February 2021, Melbourne, Australia. London: Design Research Society. pp. 36-55. https://doi.org/10.21606/servdes2020.75
Osborne, S. P. (2021). Public Service Logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003009153
Rosenbaum, M.S., Edwards, K., Ramirez, G.C. & Grady, J. (2020). Transformative service research: Thoughts, perspectives, and research directions. In: Bridges, E. & Fowler, K. (eds.). The Routledge handbook of service research insights and ideas. London: Routledge. pp. 424-442.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi
Sarah Jane Cipressi

Inclusive User Experience: In User Experience Design, Human-Computer Interaction, Service Design, and Digital Accessibility, Inclusive User Experience (IUX) refers to the quality, dignity, and equity of human interactions with products, services, and digital environments across diverse capabilities, identities, and socio-technical circumstances. Extending standard ISO definitions of usability and user experience, inclusive UX embeds digital accessibility into the broader ecosystem of user satisfaction, agency, and social participation. It evaluates the complete user journey—spanning discovery, onboarding, primary task execution, customer support, and offboarding. A critical dimension of inclusive user experience is distinguishing component-level usability from end-to-end service equity. An interface may achieve technical operability yet degrade user experience by imposing disproportionate cognitive or procedural effort, such as convoluted identity verification, inaccessible support channels, or forced disclosure of disability status. Methodologically, inclusive UX maps friction across holistic customer journeys, recruits participants with diverse lived experiences, and evaluates both objective task performance and subjective affective responses. Rather than forcing identical interaction paths or guaranteeing uniform satisfaction, inclusive user experience ensures equitable opportunities for access, autonomy, and participation across physical, digital, and service touchpoints.

References:
Gilbert, R. (2019). Inclusive design for a digital world: Designing with accessibility in mind. Berkeley, CA: Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-5016-7
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11:2018). Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO 9241-210:2019). Geneva: ISO.
Lai-Chong Law, E., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S. & Kort, J. (2009). Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘09). New York, NY: ACM. pp. 719-728. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Inclusive Validation: In User Experience Design, Human-Computer Interaction, Universal Design, and Software Evaluation, Inclusive Validation refers to an evaluative orientation and empirical framework that assesses design solutions with explicit attention to users, capabilities, and socio-technical circumstances frequently overlooked in standard usability protocols. Grounded in capability-based evaluation models and participatory accessibility frameworks, inclusive validation systematically examines the dynamic relationship between system demands and diverse human capabilities across cognitive, sensory, physical, and situational spectrums. Methodologically, inclusive validation rejects single-score metrics or superficial checklists in favor of multi-method empirical inquiry. It integrates task-based usability testing, automated accessibility audits, assistive technology evaluations, and qualitative participant feedback. Evaluators establish contextual research questions prior to metric selection, measuring task completion, cognitive effort, user confidence, and participation equity. Crucially, inclusive validation acknowledges that no finite participant sample can fully represent human diversity; it explicitly documents sample boundaries, unresolved barriers, and trade-offs. Rather than claiming universal exclusion elimination, inclusive validation provides a transparent, evidence-grounded basis for continuous iterative design.

References:
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11:2018). Geneva: ISO.
Persad, U., Langdon, P. & Clarkson, J. (2007). Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6, 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-007-0083-y
Rubin, J. & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation, 12 December 2024). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
World Wide Web Consortium. (n.d.). Involving users in evaluating web accessibility. https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/involving-users/

Editor:
Alessia Brischetto

Invisible User: In Human-Computer Interaction, media theory, software engineering, and socio-technical studies, the Invisible User refers to a multifaceted construct addressing the tension between the interface-level disappearance of computational technology and the structural erasure, abstraction, or marginalization of human agency. Originating in ubiquitous computing, invisibility was initially conceptualized as an ergonomic ideal, wherein interfaces achieve phenomenological transparency to reduce cognitive friction. However, critical media theory deconstructs this seamlessness, arguing that erasing interface visibility eliminates the “Turing Complete User” – reducing active agents aware of programmable systems to passive consumers. In software engineering, the term encompasses non-human system components (kernels, APIs, background processes) whose unvalidated inputs condition stability. Sociologically and through Design Justice lenses, the invisible user denotes marginalized cohorts – such as postcolonial populations adapting technology on the margins, users-by-proxy navigating platform economies without digital footprints, or demographic groups omitted from training datasets – who suffer algorithmic bias and digital ageism. In the era of autonomous AI, invisible interfaces exacerbate instruction and intentionality gaps, making critical friction essential to preserve human sovereignty.

References:
Burrell, J. (2012). Invisible users: Youth in the Internet cafés of urban Ghana. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262017367.001.0001
Chu, C.H., Nyrup, R., Leslie, K., Shi, J., Bianchi, A., Lyn, A., McNicholl, M., Khan, S., Rahimi, S. & Grenier, A. (2022). Digital Ageism: Challenges and Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence for Older Adults. Gerontologist, 62 (7), 947-955. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab167
Lialina, O. (2021). Turing Complete User: Resisting Alienation in Human Computer Interaction. Heidelberg: Arthistoricum.net. https://doi.org/10.11588/arthistoricum.972
Newlands, G., Lutz, C. & Hoffmann, C.P. (2018). Sharing by proxy: Invisible users in the sharing economy. First Monday, 23 (11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i11.8159

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Normativity: In philosophy, legal theory, and Design Studies, Normativity refers to the prescriptive dimension of reality that structures concepts of reason, correctness, obligation, and justification. Rooted in the distinction between descriptive (“is”) and prescriptive (“ought”) claims, the normative phenomenon delineates how rules, values, and standards govern both human agency and socio-technical systems. While metaethics and epistemology examine authoritative normativity through the “reasons-first” paradigm and epistemic justification, jurisprudence accounts for the binding force of institutional frameworks through social acceptance and structural validity. In critical design theory and Disability Studies, normativity materializes as a foundational mechanism of power: bodily, sensory, and cognitive norms are inscribed directly into physical, digital, and legal architectures. By prescriptively defining what constitutes a “correct” user, a “standard” body, or an “intended” behavior, normative design establishes implicit boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. Addressing normativity requires critically deconstructing these naturalized baselines, transforming rigid prescriptivism into adaptive, pluralistic, and justice-oriented frameworks.

References:
Bix, B.H. (2018). Kelsen, Hart, and legal normativity. Revus, 34, Article 3984. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.3984
Glüer, K., Wikforss, Å. & Ganapini, M. (2024). The normativity of meaning and content. In: Zalta, E.N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning-normativity/
Schroeder, M. (2021). Reasons first. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Participatory Design: In Design Studies and critical design theory, Participatory Design refers to an epistemological, methodological, and political paradigm asserting that people directly affected by design decisions or socio-technical systems have a fundamental right to act as co-designers with genuine decision-making power across the design lifecycle. Emerging in 1970s Scandinavia through industrial democracy projects such as UTOPIA, Participatory Design originated to counter workplace deskilling and centralized managerial control. Transcending traditional User-Centered Design, Participatory Design reframes participants from passive subjects into active co-creators, operationalizing core mechanisms of mutual learning, power balancing, and treating conflict as a creative resource rather than an error. Expanding into civic spheres, Participatory Design evolved toward “agonistic infrastructuring” and “Design Things” –socio-material assemblies where heterogeneous publics debate controversial matters of concern and sustain long-term collaborative networks. Contemporary feminist and decolonial turns further deconstruct Eurocentric universalism, integrating Data Feminism, equitable community-based practices, and pluriversal paradigms that honor situated indigenous knowledge and mutual transformation across differences. In the era of automated intelligence, Participatory Design provides a vital framework for Participatory AI, resisting participation washing by establishing collective governance over data, model architectures, and socio-technical futures.

References:
Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012). Agonistic participatory design: Working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign, 8 (2–3), 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.672577
Bødker, S., Dindler, C., Iversen, O.S. & Smith, R.C. (2022). Participatory Design. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02235-7
Gregory, J. (2003). Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19 (1), 62-74.
Harrington, C., Erete, S. & Piper, A.M. (2019). Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 3 (CSCW), Article 216. pp. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Sarah Jane Cipressi

Paternalism: In Design Studies, philosophy of technology, and applied ethics, Paternalism in Design refers to the explicit, implicit, or structural practice of inscribing constraints, directives, or behavioral nudges into physical, digital, and algorithmic artifacts to guide or restrict user actions for their presumed individual or collective well-being, often at the expense of direct decision-making autonomy. Rooted in the material turn in ethics and technological mediation theory, this paradigm recognizes that artifacts are not neutral tools, but active moral agents that shape human agency and choices. Projecting designers’ normative visions onto populations manifests across a continuum – ranging from physical coercion and choice architecture (libertarian paternalism) to digital dark patterns and hypernudging. In intelligent systems, algorithmic paternalism further compresses human agency by delegating decision-making to autonomous, opaque predictive architectures that act as unchallengeable authorities. Addressing design paternalism requires navigating the tension between negative liberty and positive liberty, contrasting non-reflective behavioral steering with empowering, transparent frameworks – such as boosting, self-nudging, and fraternal design – that foster critical user autonomy and participatory agency.

References:
Hertwig, R. & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12 (6), 973-986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496
Hofmann, B. (2026) Artificial autonomy and algorithmic paternalism: AI shaping human autonomy and decision-making. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 9, 1860239. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1860239
Kühler, M. (2022). Exploring the phenomenon and ethical issues of AI paternalism in health apps. Bioethics, 36 (2), 194-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12886
Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. (2021). Nudge: The final edition. New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Situational Disability: In Inclusive design, Human-Computer Interaction, and ubiquitous computing, Situational Disability – also conceptualized as Situationally-Induced Impairment and Disability (SIID) – refers to a transient, context-dependent limitation in sensory, motor, or cognitive performance. Rather than stemming from a permanent biological impairment, a situational disability arises dynamically from an unfavorable misalignment between a user’s immediate environment, task demands, and technological constraints. Formally introduced by Andrew Sears and expanded by Jacob Wobbrock, SIID theory distinguishes situational impairments (transient contextual constraints, such as ambient glare, extreme cold, or environmental noise) from situational disabilities (the resulting task-level interaction failures, such as inability to read a screen or type accurately). Grounded in the Social Model of Disability, SIID demonstrates that functional exclusion is a contextual property of socio-technical mismatches rather than an intrinsic personal trait. Operationalized through frameworks like Microsoft’s Persona Spectrum, this paradigm shows how solutions created for permanent impairments yield scalable benefits for temporary and situational constraints (“Design for One, Extend to Many”). Systematically addressed via the Sense-Model-Adapt engineering pattern, situational accessibility leverages onboard sensors to detect environmental shifts and dynamically adjust interface affordances across fluctuating contexts.

References:
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sarsenbayeva, Z., van Berkel, N., Luo, C., Kostakos, V. & Goncalves, J. (2017). Challenges of situational impairments during interaction with mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI ‘17). New York, NY: ACM. pp. 477-481. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3156161
Tigwell, G.W., Sarsenbayeva, Z., Gorman, B.M., Flatla, D.R., Goncalves, J., Yesilada, Y. & Wobbrock, J.O. (2019). Addressing the challenges of situationally-induced impairments and disabilities in mobile interaction. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ‘19). New York, NY: ACM. pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3299029
Wobbrock, J.O. (2019). Situationally-Induced Impairments and Disabilities. In: Yesilada, Y., Harper, S. (eds.). Web Accessibility. Human–Computer Interaction Series. London: Springer. pp. 59-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7440-0_5

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Social Exclusion: In sociology, socio-political theory, and critical policy studies, social exclusion refers to a multi-dimensional, dynamic, and relational process through which individuals and collectives are systematically isolated from or denied full access to essential economic, political, social, and spatial resources, opportunities, and fundamental rights. Moving beyond narrow income-centric metrics of poverty, social exclusion encompasses structural and institutional mechanisms – including social closure, systemic discrimination, territorial segregation, and civic disenfranchisement – that rupture the social bond, restrict human agency, and impair social solidarity. Grounded in capability approaches and relational social frameworks, exclusion operates through both active detachment and adverse incorporation, wherein marginalized populations are integrated into socio-economic structures on highly asymmetrical, predatory, or precarious terms. Because exclusionary processes compound dynamically across the life-course through cumulative disadvantage, addressing their root causes requires moving from reactive, stigmatizing welfare palliatives toward proactive structural transformations. By dismantling systemic barriers, redistributing social agency, and guaranteeing unconditional citizenship rights, countering social exclusion serves as a fundamental prerequisite for democratic legitimacy, structural equity, and human flourishing.

References:
Crisp, B.R., & Taket, A. (2020). Sustaining social inclusion. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429397936
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Sen, A. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny (Social Development Papers No. 1). Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Silver, H. (2015). Social exclusion. In: Stone, J., Dennis, R.M., Rizova, P.S., Smith, A.D. & Xiu, Y. (eds). The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663202.wberen591
United Nations. (2013). Report on the world social situation 2013: Inequality matters. New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Social Model of Disability: In Disability Studies, sociology, and political philosophy, the Social Model of Disability refers to the conceptual framework that defines disability not as an intrinsic biological deficit or personal tragedy, but as a complex system of social oppression, exclusion, and institutionalized discrimination. Emerging from British disability activism in the 1970s – specifically the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation – and later formalized sociologically by Mike Oliver, the model introduces a fundamental epistemological distinction between impairment and disability. Impairment denotes physical, sensory, or cognitive bodily variations, whereas disability signifies the disadvantage and activity restrictions imposed by a contemporary social organization that takes little to no account of diverse bodily functionings. By shifting the unit of analysis from individual pathology to environmental, attitudinal, and socio-economic barriers, the Social Model reframes disability as a structural rights issue rather than a medical problem requiring clinical cure or charitable welfare. Although revised by materialist, feminist, and relational critiques – which re-integrate impairment effects and personal lived experience – the Social Model remains the foundational paradigm for emancipatory disability research, anti-discrimination legislation, and the global movement for civil rights.

References:
Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination: A case for anti-discrimination legislation. London: Hurst & Co.
Degener, T. (2016). Disability in a human rights context. Laws, 5 (3), Article 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5030035
Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people: Issues for discussion. New York, NY: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Red Globe Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1
Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London: UPIAS.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Social Sustainability: In socio-political theory, urban studies, and sustainability paradigms, Social Sustainability refers to the relational, procedural, and structural dimension of development that enables societies to achieve social justice, fulfill human needs, and reproduce over time. Historically subordinated to environmental and economic pillars within Brundtland and Triple Bottom Line models, contemporary scholarship conceptualizes social sustainability as an autonomous, multi-scalar concept that bridges individual well-being with collective resilience by operationalizing Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) across socio-technical systems. Theoretical frameworks structure social sustainability across distinct dimensions. The tripartite schema articulates development sustainability (satisfying basic material needs), bridge sustainability (fostering behavioral shifts toward ecological goals), and maintenance sustainability (preserving socio-cultural practices, place attachment, and community cohesion). In urban contexts, social sustainability operates through the dual imperatives of structural equity – guaranteeing fair access to services, infrastructure, and public spaces – and community sustainability, encompassing social capital, civic interaction, and the inclusive recognition of human diversity. Furthermore, risk-oriented ontologies frame social sustainability as a mechanism to confront climate hazards through redistributive justice, recognition, participatory parity, and safe urban forms. Ultimately, social sustainability converts human plurality into a catalyst for democratic cohesion, systemic inclusion, and structural equity.

References
de Fine Licht, K. & Folland, A. (2019). Defining “social sustainability”: Towards a sustainable solution to the conceptual confusion. Etikk i Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 13 (2), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v13i2.2913
Dempsey, N. Bramley, G. Power, S. & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19 (5), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
Eizenberg, E. & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability, 9 (1), Article 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010068
Littig, B. & Grießler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8 (1-2), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007375
Vallance, S. Perkins, H.C. & Dixon, J.E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42 (3), 342-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002

Editor:
Emilo Rossi

Systemic Exclusion: In sociology, legal theory, and political philosophy, Systemic Exclusion refers to a multidimensional, processual, and structural phenomenon through which individuals and collectives are systematically marginalized from economic resources, civic rights, and political participation. Distinct from static income poverty, systemic exclusion is produced by institutional architectures, socio-technical systems, and normative frameworks that durably reproduce social distance. Epistemologically conceptualized across three paradigms – solidarity (breakdown of moral social bonds), specialization (market discriminations), and monopoly (Weberian social closure and resource monopolies) – the construct accounts for diverse political regimes. At the organizational level, systemic exclusion operates through the conversion of economic, cultural, and social capital, alongside categorical mechanisms including exploitation, opportunity hoarding, emulation, and adaptation. Furthermore, intersectional analysis demonstrates how overlapping vectors of oppression produce qualitatively unique marginalizations, while structural injustice frameworks reveal how exclusion arises from the cumulative effect of uncoordinated, normalized social practices and design choices rather than individual malice. Amartya Sen conceptualizes this process as the constitutive and instrumental deprivation of capabilities. Ultimately, countering systemic exclusion requires moving beyond welfare palliatives toward democratic restructuring, inclusive infrastructure, and shared political responsibility.

References:
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 241-258.
Crenshaw, K.W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989 (1), 139-167.
Sen, A. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny (Social Development Papers No. 1). Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133 (5-6), 531-578.
Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Young, I.M. (2011). Responsibility for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Territorial Inclusion: In spatial design, regional development, and transition theory, Territorial Inclusion (or Territorial Co-Design & Systemic Innovation) refers to a systemic paradigm and co-design process expanding inclusive design from localized micro-accessibility to macro-scale socio-spatial metabolisms. Shifting focus from individual user-product interactions to regional dynamics, Territorial Inclusion conceptualizes territories – including urban peripheries, rural zones, and marginal regions – not as static containers, but as dynamic socio-technical systems composed of interdependent resource flows, economic networks, and governance structures. Grounded in spatial justice, it asserts that social equity requires dismantling structural peripheralization and geographic segregation. Territorial Inclusion is operationalized through the Systemic Design Approach and Sustainable Product-Service Systems (S.PSS) linked with Distributed Economies. Deploying multi-stakeholder co-design and visual mapping, it engages local authorities, civil society, and underrepresented communities as co-creators. This process generates goal-oriented, place-based solutions – such as Territorial Product-Service Systems – that convert local waste into productive inputs and lower capital barriers. Ultimately, Territorial Inclusion aligns regional development with ecological limits while guaranteeing equitable access to infrastructure and governance.

References
Bicocca, M. (2016). Rural development and sustainable innovation: How systemic design approach can contribute to the growth of marginal regions. In Systems & Design: Beyond Processes and Thinking (pp. 315–326). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/IFDP.2015.3300
Ceschin, F. & Gaziulusoy, I. (2019). Design for sustainability: A multi-level framework from products to socio-technical system innovations and transitions. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429456510
Pereno, A. & Barbero, S. (2020). Systemic design for territorial enhancement: An overview on design tools supporting socio-technical system innovation. Strategic Design Research Journal, 13 (2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2020.132.02
Vezzoli, C., Garcia Parra, B. & Kohtala, C. (2018). Designing Sustainability for All: The Design of Sustainable Product-Service Systems Applied to Distributed Economies. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66300-1

Editors:
Emilio Rossi
Sarah Jane Cipressi
Rossana Gaddi

Tokenism: In sociology, organizational theory, political philosophy, and Design Studies, Tokenism (or Symbolic Inclusion) refers to the institutional practice of making perfunctory, symbolic, or superficial gestures toward the inclusion of historically marginalized groups. Originating in civil rights critiques of desegregation and formalized sociologically by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, tokenism manifests when underrepresented individuals are admitted into dominant structures in numbers below a critical mass. Rather than achieving structural integration, tokenism functions as an institutional containment mechanism and non-performative strategy that shields power structures from critique while leaving decision-making hierarchies intact. Mechanistically, tokenism subjects marginalized individuals to hyper-visibility, performance pressure, social isolation, and role encapsulation, reducing complex identities to stereotypical proxies. Within participatory design, co-design, and governance frameworks, tokenism occurs when underrepresented stakeholders are consulted in cosmetic or late-stage phases without deliberative power, budget control, or veto authority, corresponding to middle-tier placation on Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of participation. Critical diversity studies and Design Justice reframe tokenism not as an accidental transitional phase, but as a performative preservation of privilege, demanding a shift from symbolic presence to procedural equity and structural redistribution.

References:
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395324
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Childress, C., Nayyar, J. & Gibson, I. (2024). Tokenism and Its Long-Term Consequences: Evidence from the Literary Field. American Sociological Review, 89 (1), 31-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224231214288
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Zimmer, L. (1988). Tokenism and Women in the Workplace: The Limits of Gender-Neutral Theory. Social Problems, 35 (1), 64-77, https://doi.org/10.2307/800667

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Value-Sensitive Design: In Human-Computer Interaction, ethics of technology, and information systems, Value Sensitive Design (VSD) refers to a theoretical, methodological, and tripartite framework that systematically accounts for human values throughout the technical design lifecycle. Developed by Batya Friedman and colleagues, Value Sensitive Design rests on an interactional philosophy, positing that technology and human values co-shape each other, rejecting both technological determinism and value neutrality. Methodologically, Value Sensitive Design integrates three iterative investigations: conceptual (identifying values and direct/indirect stakeholders, including marginalized voices), empirical (evaluating how stakeholders prioritize values in practice), and technical (analyzing how technological properties hinder or foster human values). By expanding the scope of design beyond immediate usability to encompass moral and political values – such as privacy, autonomy, fairness, justice, and accessibility – Value Sensitive Design proactively mitigates systemic biases (preexisting, technical, and emergent). Through specialized methodologies such as Diverse Voices, Value Scenarios, and Value Dams and Flows, Value Sensitive Design translates abstract ethical principles into concrete architectural affordances. Value Sensitive Design provides an essential operational framework to ensure socio-technical systems respect human dignity and pluralism across diverse social contexts.

References:
Borning, A. & Muller, M. (2012). Next steps for value sensitive design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘12) New York, NY: ACM. pp. 1125-1134. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208560
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D.G. (2019). Value Sensitive Design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001
Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., Borning, A. & Huldtgren, A. (2013). Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I. & Gorman, M. (eds.). Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 55-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4
van de Poel, I. (2020). Embedding Values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems. Minds & Machines, 30, 385-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4

Editor:
Emilio Rossi

Itinerary review

A shared space for understanding key concepts of EDI and design, that acknowledges the complexity and evolving nature of language.

Find answers to the most commonly asked questions.

This project has recieved funding from the European Erasmus + programme (KA220-HED)

FOLLOW US

Itinerary review

GLOSSARY

A shared space for understanding key concepts of EDI and design, that acknowledges the complexity and evolving nature of language.

Login required