A comparison of methods currently used in inclusive design

This article compares methods used to help designers understand capability variation and assess exclusion. Its EDI value lies in resisting a one-method-fits-all view: simulations, personas, data tools and user involvement provide different kinds of evidence and carry different risks. The comparison helps practitioners choose methods according to project stage, resources and the question being asked. This is important because methods can create a false sense of empathy or certainty when they substitute brief simulation for lived experience, or when population data obscure intersecting identities. Used critically, the paper supports transparent method selection and encourages combinations of quantitative assessment with direct engagement. It therefore strengthens the methodological literacy needed to make inclusive design evidence more reliable and accountable.