investigation of a user-informed standard to promote ...shura.shu.ac.uk/20726/1/10702824.pdf · and...
TRANSCRIPT
Investigation of a user-informed standard to promote inclusive design of fitness equipment.
HUGHES, Dawn Elizabeth.
Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at:
http://shura.shu.ac.uk/20726/
This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.
Published version
HUGHES, Dawn Elizabeth. (2010). Investigation of a user-informed standard to promote inclusive design of fitness equipment. Doctoral, Sheffield Hallam University (United Kingdom)..
Copyright and re-use policy
See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html
Sheffield Hallam University Research Archivehttp://shura.shu.ac.uk
Loaning ana i \ ^erv.oes CcHec'rie Loarnlng Centra
Ccaaaiata Crescent Campus Sheffield S10 2BP
1 0 2 0 0 1 83 8 0
REFERENCE
ProQuest Number: 10702824
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com ple te manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uestProQuest 10702824
Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
Investigation of a user-informed standard to promote inclusive design of fitness equipment
Dawn Elizabeth Hughes
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
September 2010
Collaborating Organisation: Inclusive Fitness Initiative
Dawn Elizabeth Hughes, MEng MSc
Abstract
Investigation of a user-informed standard to promote inclusive design of fitness equipment
This thesis describes the development of a technical standard to aid in the design of inclusive commercial fitness equipment. It was driven by the Inclusive Fitness Initiative, a charitable organisation leading the way in the mainstream delivery of an inclusive fitness culture in the UK. Confirmation of the widespread inaccessibility of existing products to disabled people is provided through a literature review, which additionally highlights the importance of considering a range of product types and impairment categories in providing a feasible design solution. The review also upholds the thesis’ premise that the fitness industry’s adoption of more inclusive practices is being hindered by the lack of relevant and coherent design information.
With the inclusive design of mainstream commercial fitness equipment in its infancy, the work necessarily draws on predominantly qualitative and inductive investigation methods. Advocated for use in new fields, a consortium approach was used to develop an inclusive design standard in consultation with relevant stakeholder groups. Data has been drawn from 5 practical testing sessions involving 122 users examining a total of 209 products. Questionnaires have been employed to capture the needs of individuals with a range of physical, sensory and cognitive impairments and the findings used to identify the foremost sources of design exclusion. Concurrently, commercial perspectives on the viability of an industry-specific inclusive design standard have been solicited from 15 equipment supplier organisations, representing approximately 65% of the industry, via a series of 9 focus group sessions. From analysis of the collective data, the first draft of the standard was created by the author. Subsequent revisions were guided by an equipment expert panel, convened to offer professional opinions and synthesise user and supplier data, until a consensus on technical content was reached. Substantive conclusions are drawn from the research with regard to the use of an independent and multidisciplinary expert panel to mediate between multiple stakeholder groups and to determine a level of inclusion that can be reasonably and practicably achieved. Further conclusions examine the changing attitudes of leading supplier organisations towards new ways of working, with the uptake of the standard, product design changes and feedback from product design staff indicating the efficacy of the research approach in promoting inclusive design practice.
Finally, case study and survey data are presented to confirm the subsequent effectiveness of the standard in supporting inclusive equipment design. The value of the standard is further demonstrated by its inclusion in the bibliography of EN 957:1, the European Standard governing the safety of fitness equipment, alongside the creation of an associated class of product. In addition, the content of the standard has formed a considerable proportion of the new inclusive fitness standard under development by sub-committee WK19803 of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Acknowledgements
My sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor Graham Cockerham, Professor of
Engineering Design and Head of Engineering Design & Technology at Sheffield
Hallam University. I am deeply grateful for his personal support, expert
guidance and great patience. I would also like to thank his administrator Jean
Grove for her kindness, friendship and assistance, together with Nicholas
Pickett, Senior Lecturer, for taking on the project and agreeing to the initial
industry collaboration.
I am also grateful to the Inclusive Fitness Initiative, Montgomery Leisure
Services, the English Federation of Disability Sport, Sport England, Sheffield
Hallam University and the IFI R&D Associate fitness equipment suppliers (see
pg 8) for funding this project.
Throughout the research many people have generously contributed their time,
thoughts, and advice and without whom the project could not have progressed. I
am particularly thankful to all of the disabled people, disability organisations,
fitness instructors, buddies and supplier representatives who have participated
in the work, as well as the many fitness equipment design teams who have
each provided invaluable insight into the subject area.
I am extremely appreciative for the dedication and expertise of the IFI
Equipment Panel; Will Behenna, Sue Catton, Howard Davies, Spencer Holmes,
Suresh Paul and Sara Wicebloom, as well as for their uncanny ability to make
standards’ meetings humorous! My thanks also go to all of the Montgomery
Leisure Services staff involved in the IFI for their assistance during the study.
On both a personal and professional level, I would particularly like to express
my heartfelt thanks to Sue Catton for her unequivocal support, encouragement
and ongoing commitment throughout the project.
A special thank you also goes to Dr Suresh Paul who has been a friend as well
as mentor, giving much appreciated moral support and guidance in his capacity
as ‘unofficial supervisor’. I have enjoyed our academic debate and valued
immensely his bigger picture perspective.
I additionally owe a debt of gratitude to Howard Davies for his friendship,
willingness to share his extensive knowledge of the industry with me, and
importantly, a bottle of red wine... or two!
Finally, I am forever indebted to Norma Hughes and Claire Sambridge for their
understanding, encouragement, endless patience, unconditional support and for
believing in me throughout.
I would like to dedicate this work to the late Dr Samantha Clowe, a close friend
who regrettably never had the opportunity to see the finished manuscript.
Contents
Page Number
Acknowledgments i
Contents iii
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xii
Abbreviations xiii
Research Papers Published xiv
Chapter One:
Introduction 11.1 Background 1
1.1.1 The Inclusive Fitness Initiative 1
1.1.2 The IFI Model of Delivery 3
1.2 Introduction to the Study 5
1.2.1 Inaccessible Fitness Equipment 6
1.2.2 Equipment Supplier Collaboration 7
1.2.3 Research Aim and Objectives 9
1.3 Structure of the Thesis 10
Chapter Two:
Literature Review of Research Issues 152.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Existing Provision for Disabled People 16
2.2.1 Accessibility of Fitness Equipment 16
2.2.2 Previous Efforts to Design for Disability 18
2.2.3 Scarcity of Design Information 22
2.3 Incentives for Increasing Equipment Accessibility 24
2.3.1 Market Epidemiology 24
2.3.2 Health Promotion 25
2.3.3 Commercial Viability 27
iii
2.4 Creating Inclusive Equipment 28
2.4.1 Importance of Equipment Design 28
2.4.2 The Inclusive Design Approach 30
2.4.3 Existing Inclusive Design Information 31
2.5 Consortium Model Standards 33
2.6 Conclusion 35
Chapter Three:
Research Methodology 373.1 Introduction 37
3.2 Rationale for Development of a Standard 37
3.3 Guiding Development Principles 40
3.3.1 Confidentiality 40
3.3.2 Equity 41
3.3.3 Transparent Process for Accreditation 41
3.3.4 User-friendly Format 42
3.3.5 Aid to Effective Communication 42
3.3.6 Impacts Early in Existing Design Processes 42
3.4 Research Design 43
3.4.1 Research Methods 44
3.4.2 Stakeholder Studies 46
3.5 Conclusion 49
Chapter Four:
User Identification of Existing Design Exclusion 504.1 Introduction 50
4.2 Capturing User Needs - Data Collection 50
4.2.1 Test Environment 51
4.2.2 Profile of Equipment Tested 53
4.2.3 Profile of Tester Population 55
4.2.4 Questionnaire Design 58
4.3 Quantitative Data Analysis 64
4.3.1 Data Analysis Methods 64
4.3.2 Results 65
iv
4.3.3 Discussion of Findings 68
4.4 Qualitative Data Analysis 70
4.4.1 Data Analysis Methods 70
4.4.2 Results 71
4.4.3 Discussion of Findings 74
4.5 Conclusion 75
Chapter Five:
Industrial Consultation on the Inclusive Design Standard 775.1 Introduction 77
5.2 Consultation Objectives 78
5.3 Participating Suppliers 79
5.4 Research Methods 83
5.4.1 Focus Group Data Collection 83
5.4.2 Supplementary Research Methods 89
5.4.3 Data Analysis 90
5.5 Research Findings 90
5.5.1 Existence of Design Exclusion 91
5.5.2 Current Perspectives on Inclusivity Within the Industry 93
5.5.3 Understanding of Inclusive Design 94
5.5.4 Availability of Inclusive Design Information 96
5.5.5 Challenges to Adopting an Inclusive Design Standard 97
5.5.6 Motivations for Participation in Standards Development 101
5.6 Conclusion 102
Chapter Six:
Achieving Consensus on Content for the Inclusive Design
Standard 1056.1 Introduction 105
6.2 7-Phase Content Development Process 105
6.2.1 Phase 1: Proposal for New Work 109
6.2.2 Phase 2: Project Acceptance 109
6.2.3 Phase 3: Drafting 110
v
6.2.4 Phase 4: Public Comment Period 141
6.2.5 Phase 5: Approval 143
6.2.6 Phase 6: Publication 144
6.2.7 Phase 7: Review 147
6.3 Conclusion 148
Chapter Seven:
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Inclusive Design
Standard 1507.1 Introduction 150
7.2 Impact on Current Design Practice - Inclusive Product
Developments 151
7.3 Effectiveness of the Inclusive Design Standard in Supporting
Change 166
7.4 Endorsement by National Standards Organisations 174
7.4.1 British Standards Institution, Committee for European
Normalisation and International Organization for
Standardization 175
7.4.2 American Society for Testing and Materials 176
7.5 Endorsement by Non-Standards Related Organisations 177
7.5.1 UK Trade & Investment and International Paralympic
Committee 178
7.5.2 Local Authorities and Leisure Trusts 179
7.6 Conclusion 179
Chapter Eight:
General Discussion and Conclusions 1828.1 Introduction 182
8.2 Efficacy of the Research Approach 183
8.2.1 Development of the Inclusive Design Standard 183
8.2.2 Limitations of the Research Methodology 185
8.2.3 Impact on Inclusive Design Practices 187
8.3 Influences on the Effectiveness of the Inclusive Design Standard 194
vi
8.3.1 Diversity of the Disability Population 196
8.3.2 Implementation Issues for Product Designers 197
8.3.3 Influence of Organisational Culture 200
8.4 Sustaining Inclusive Design Practices 204
8.5 Conclusion 205
Chapter Nine:
Key Conclusions and Contribution to Knowledge 2079.1 Introduction 207
9.2 Key Conclusions and Original Contribution to Knowledge 208
9.2.1 Standardisation of Diversity 208
9.2.2 Provision of Inclusive Design Resources 209
9.2.3 Influencing Organisational Change 210
9.3 Possibilities for Future Work 212
9.4 Conclusion 213
References 214
Appendices
Appendix A: Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI) background information A1-4
Appendix B: List of fitness equipment suppliers providing products
for practical testing B1
Appendix C: Invitation to fitness equipment suppliers to participate C1
Appendix D: Testers’ questionnaire and scoring criteria including
examples of completed items D1-10
Appendix E: Summary of main equipment accessibility issues
identified by testers E1-3
Appendix F: Example of focus group agenda and minutes F1-6
Appendix G: Draft for Development (Stage One) G1-23
Appendix H: Example of supplementary test description and testers’
questionnaire including examples of completed items H1-13
vii
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Excerpt from inclusive design standard (IFI Equipment
Standard - Stage 2, Part 1 - General Requirements and
Part 2 - Strength Equipment) 11-26
Feedback questionnaire for design teams including
examples of completed items J1-13
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Figure 1.2: Figure 2.1 (a):
Figure 2.1 (b):
Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.4: Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2: Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4: Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6: Figure 4.7:
Figure 4.8:
Figure 4.9:
Figure 4.10:
Figure 4.11:
Page NumberInclusive Fitness Initiative model of delivery 4Overview of concurrent research events 11Early examples of wheelchair accessible 20fitness equipment - Integra resistance range by PowerS portEarly examples of wheelchair accessible 21fitness equipment - Equality resistance range by Pulse FitnessChange in population within each age band 25over timeCyclical relationships between disability and 27physical inactivityThe standards consensus / control dynamic 34Role of standards in supporting pull through 38from R&D to marketMajor stakeholder groups considered 44influential in the design of inclusive fitnessequipmentSimulated gym environment for practical 52product testing at the English Institute for Sport, SheffieldTester self-disclosure list of impairment(s) 56Total number of testers by impairment 57classificationUser feedback questionnaire (original version) 58User feedback questionnaire (product-specific 60-61version - Treadmills)Testers performing practical tests of equipment 62-63Rank ordered overall average score data 65indicating most to least accessible generic product typesOverall average scores for access and egress 66usability criteriaOverall average scores for range of movement 66and range of resistance usability criteriaOverall average scores for comfort usability 67criteriaOverall average scores for adjustability and 67ease of programming usability criteria
ix
Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.2:
Figure 5.3:
Figure 5.4:
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6.3:
Figure 6.4:
Figure 6.5:
Figure 6.6:
Figure 6.7 (a):
Figure 6.7 (b):
Figure 6.8:
Figure 6.9:
Figure 6.10:
Figure 6.11:
Figure 7.1:
Figure 7.2:
Equipment supplier organisations participating in the consultation processBreadth of consultation process, by estimated supplier % market shareFocus group session 6 attended by fitness equipment supplier representativesKnowledge and communication gap model for the fitness industryActivities in the development of a BSI national standardInclusive design standard development process aligned to BSI 7-phase modelStrength Training Equipment excerpt from draft for developmentTreadmills excerpt from draft for development illustrating ‘essential’ and ‘desirable’ criteriaExample of accumulated and filtered user feedback for the treadmill generic product categoryAccess and Set Up / Seats excerpt from inclusive design standard showing product requirements to enable wheelchair accessExamples of supplementary practical product testing by disabled users - Ease of weight adjustment selection with varying weight pin shapeExamples of supplementary practical product testing by disabled users - Effectiveness of adding raised tactile information to control consolesConsoles excerpt from draft for development illustrating tactile iconography requirementsConsoles excerpt from inclusive design standard illustrating tactile iconography requirementsInclusive Fitness Initiative Equipment Standard - Stage Two (front cover)Awareness-raising article in Health Club Management periodical (September 2007, pgs 48-50)Increased colour contrast on weight selection pinRing-pull shaped weight selection pin for ease of grasp and manipulation
Figure 7.3:
Figure 7.4 (a):
Figure 7.4 (b):
Figure 7.5:
Figure 7.6:
Figure 7.7:
Figure 7.8:
Figure 7.9:
Figure 8.1:
Figure 8.2:
Figure 8.3:
Pulley unit adjustment pin re-designed to facilitate one handed useCentrally located seat height adjustment mechanisms to avoid left- or right- hand bias - Upright cycleCentrally located seat height adjustment mechanisms to avoid left- or right- hand bias - Recumbent cycleAddition of removable seat to facilitate wheelchair accessLowering of high handle to accommodate small and seated usersConsole re-design to increase button clarity and simplify programmingConsole re-design utilising colour for identification of major functionsProgression from retrofit to integrated solution for provision of tactile information on consolesFitness industry transition towards accessible mainstream equipmentImpact of the inclusive design standard on the knowledge and communication gap model for the fitness industryKey influences on the effectiveness of the inclusive design standard
156
157
157
159
161
162
164
166
187
189
195
xi
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 5.1:
Table 5.2: Table 5.3:
Table 5.4:
Table 6.1:
Table 6.2:
Table 7.1:
Products tested by generic product typeResults of qualitative thematic analysis - main findings for upper body resistance equipmentResults of qualitative thematic analysis - main findings for recumbent cyclesMarket share estimates for key suppliers of commercial fitness equipment (2004)Focus group sessions - dates and venuesFocus group participants and profile of supplier representationMain equipment components identified by supplier representatives as having potential accessibility shortcomings (presented by generic impairment type)Major phases in the development of a BSI national standardPrioritisation hierarchy used to resolve conflicting stakeholder requirements‘IFI Accredited Items’ known to comply fully with the inclusive design standard (as at 1st April 2009) by generic product type
xii
Page Number 5573
74
81
8588
92
106
135
151
Abbreviations
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BNQ Bureau de Normalisation du Quebec
BS British Standard
BSI British Standards Institution
CSA Canadian Standards Association
CEN European Committee for Standardization
DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport
DDA Disability Discrimination Act
DRC Disability Rights Commission
EFDS English Federation of Disability Sport
EN European Norm
FIA Fitness Industry Association
GJSF Gary Jelen Sports Foundation
HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IFI Inclusive Fitness Initiative
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IPC International Paralympic Committee
LIW Leisure Industry Week
NCPAD National Center on Physical Activity and Disability
NHS National Health Service
ONS Office for National Statistics
R&D Research and Development
TC Technical Committee
TSO The Stationery Office
UKTI UK Trade & Investment
YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association
Research Papers Published
[1] Paul, S. and Hughes, D. (2004). Embracing human diversity through
inclusive design of commercial fitness equipment. In: Hubbard, M.,
Mehta, R. D. and Pallis, J. M. (Eds.) (2004). The Engineering of Sport 5,
Volume 1, pgs 234-240, ISBN 0954786106. Sheffield: International
Sports Engineering Association.
[Presented at The 5th International Conference on Sports Engineering
(ISEA), University of California, Davis, California, United States, 13th -
16th September 2004].
[2] Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI) Equipment Panel on behalf of the English
Federation of Disability Sport Operating Company (2004). Fitness
Equipment Standards Stage One - 1st April 2004 to 30th April 2006,
ISBN 1843871206. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University. [Available from
the IFI c/o Montgomery Leisure Services Ltd., 04 Park Square, Newton
Chambers Road, Thorncliffe Park, Chapeltown, Sheffield, S35 2PH].
[3] Hughes, D., Paul, S. and Cockerham, G. (2005). Industrial barriers to
practical implementation of inclusive semantics in commercial fitness
equipment design. In [CD ROM] Proceedings of INCLUDE 2005:
International Conference on Inclusive Design, Royal College of Art, London
UK, 5-8,h April 2005, ISBN 1905000103. London: Royal College of Art.
[4] Hughes, D., Cockerham, G. and Paul, S. (2006). Encouraging Inclusive
Design Through Standardisation. In: Clarkson, J., Langdon, P. and
Robinson, P. (Eds.) (2006). Designing Accessible Technology, Part 1,
Chapter 3, pgs 21-30, ISBN 1846283647. London: Springer-Verlag.
[Presented at the 3rd Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and
Assistive Technology (CWUAAT'06), University of Cambridge,
Cambridge UK, 10th - 12th April 2006. Awarded prize for 'Best Formal
Paper' presented by the Organising Committee of CWUAAT'06 (12th April
2006)].
xiv
[5] Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI) Equipment Panel on behalf of the English
Federation of Disability Sport Operating Company (2006). Fitness
Equipment Standards Stage Two - Edition 2, May 2006. (ISBN allocation
pending from Sheffield Hallam University). Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam
University. [Available at: http://www.inclusivefitness.org/inclusive-fitness-
initiative/inclusive-fitness-equipment/ifi-equipment-standards/ifi-stage-2-
standards/].
[6] Hughes. D. (2006). Embracing Inclusive Design - Current Accessibility
Standards and Equipment Development in the UK Fitness Industry.
Keynote Address: Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC)
Rectech State of the Science Conference on Exercise and Recreational
Technologies for People with Disabilities, Hyatt Regency Denver at
Colorado Convention Center, Denver, Colorado, USA, 30th-31st May 2006.
Chicago: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
[Available at: http://www.rectech.org/conference/presentations/].
[7] Black, K. and Hughes, D. (in press). Part C: Accessibility and Inclusivity -
Equipment Design in Inclusive Physical Activity and Sport, Case Study 2:
The Inclusive Fitness Initiative. In: Roibas, A.C. and Black, K. (Eds.) (in
press). Design for Sport. ISBN 9780566099599. Surrey: Gower.
xv
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background
The Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI) is a pioneering national organisation
working in partnership with the fitness industry to remove physical, cultural and
communication barriers facing disabled people accessing mainstream fitness
facilities (Easton, 2003a)*. The primary objective of the IFI is to ensure that
every disabled person in the UK will be able to access an inclusive fitness
facility, irrespective of geography or impairment. In accordance with this
aspiration, this thesis describes a subset of activities undertaken by the author,
in association with the IFI, in relation to the development of more accessible
and inclusive fitness equipment. For the purposes of the current work inclusive
fitness equipment is defined as mainstream equipment that is accessible to, and
usable by, as many people as reasonably possible. Specifically this research
investigates fitness equipment which is designed for use by both disabled and
non-disabled users.
1.1.1 The Inclusive Fitness Initiative
Generally the UK experiences low levels of sport and physical activity
participation, with disadvantaged social groups identified as those least likely to
take part (DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002). It is therefore unsurprising perhaps, that
national survey data on involvement in sport by disabled young people (Finch et
al., 2001) and disabled adults (Sport England, 2002a) reveal significantly lower
participation rates for disabled people compared with their non-disabled
counterparts, across a wide range of impairment categories. In a specific
attempt to redress these inequalities within the fitness industry, the IFI launched
as a pilot project in 2001 funded by £1 million from the Sport England Lottery
Fund. Delivered under the auspices of the English Federation of Disability Sport
(EFDS) by Sheffield-based sports consultancy Montgomery Leisure Services,
1
‘ References are included alphabetically by author at rear of thesis
this programme worked with local authority and not-for-profit organisations to
bring new standards of accessibility to 29 public sector fitness facilities located
throughout England. Its early success and potential as a catalyst for the
development of better facilities and opportunities for disabled people was
identified by the UK Government’s Minister for Sport:
“The Inclusive Fitness Initiative is driving provision for disabled
people in public sector fitness, ensuring that as many disabled
people as possible throughout England gain access to the countless
benefits associated with physical activity. Fitness is an excellent
vehicle for addressing inclusion in the purest sense. It is something
that we can all achieve in irrespective of ability or aspiration. I hope
that in time, inclusive fitness opportunities will cease to be innovative
and will simply become the expected norm. ”
Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP, Minister for Sport (EFDS, 2002, pg 3)
A further award of £5million from the Sport England Lottery Fund in 2003 for a
national rollout to 150 public facilities was followed in 2007 by a grant of
£1.95million from the National Sports Foundation for work with an additional
200 public and private sector sites. Interventions were made at each of these
mainstream fitness centres to enable them to become more accessible and
attractive to a wide range of disabled people. Consequently, the IFI will support
a network of nearly 400 inclusive facilities by the end of 2009, with the ambition
to impact 1000 facilities by the time of the London 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games. According to Baker (2001), disability groups across the UK
have praised the launch of these first inclusive gyms as a landmark which could
radically change gym culture. The IFI is thus seen to be at the cutting edge of
developments in this new field of inclusive fitness both in England and also
internationally (EFDS, 2002).
2
1.1.2 The IFI Model of Delivery
Utilising a questionnaire-based research approach, the Gary Jelen Sports
Foundation (GJSF) (1999a) proposed that there were five principal barriers
preventing disabled people from accessing fitness services in English local
authority leisure centres. These were:
1. A lack of physically accessible facilities
2. Little fitness equipment which met the needs of disabled users
3. A lack of awareness amongst disabled people about the benefits of a
healthy lifestyle and physical activity
4. Insufficient staff training and knowledge in providing fitness services to
disabled people
5. Limited communication, targeting and marketing of fitness facilities to
disabled people.
Studies by other researchers identified similar barriers and offered evidence as
to the legitimacy of the Gary Jelen Sports Foundation conclusions. The Health
Education Authority, for example, determined that “there is very little knowledge
available to people with disabilities about the benefits of activity to their main
condition or its potential role in preventing secondary complications” (1997, pg
13). Comparable investigations in America by Simunds and McGill (2003)
suggest the intimidating atmosphere of most exercise clubs and inaccessible
equipment are amongst the most common barriers to exercise, whilst Bennett
(2000) highlights staff training inadequacies. A comprehensive and systematic
study by Rimmer et al. (2004) into the barriers and facilitators associated with
participation by disabled people in fitness, concurs with these environmental,
professional training and education related issues, whilst identifying additional
economic and psychological aspects. Rimmer et al. (2004) conclude that
access to physical activity venues by disabled people is a complex and multi
faceted issue. What is apparent from all of these studies is that increased
participation in fitness activities by disabled people will not be achieved by
addressing any single issue in isolation. Correspondingly, the IFI works to
3
simultaneously promote inclusion in the four key areas identified in Figure 1.1
and also outlined below.
/ Facility Accessibility
Fitness ' Equipment
Inclusive fitness
StaffTraining
Marketing & Outreach
Figure 1.1: Inclusive Fitness Initiative model of delivery
Facility Accessibility: Architectural issues and managerial policies are
considered in order to create more accessible venues within which disabled
people can participate effectively. Current best practice and legislation are
implemented to provide inclusive environments which meet the functional,
cultural and communication requirements of a wide range of disabled people.
Fitness Equipment: Installation of fitness equipment that concurrently meets
the functional and training needs of both disabled and non-disabled users. The
availability of a range of accessible, inclusive products is necessary to facilitate
a full body workout for the vast majority of users with impairments.
Staff Training: Training of facility staff to ensure they have the skills necessary
to cater for the needs of disabled people. Fitness instructors are offered industry
recognised qualifications to provide confidence and competency in creating
fitness programmes for disabled individuals.
4
Marketing and Outreach: Implementation of inclusive marketing strategies to
increase disabled peoples’ awareness of the opportunities available to them
and ensure the fitness industry promotes a more inclusive and accessible
image.
It is the author’s unequivocal belief that it is only through a concerted effort to
simultaneously address these complex and interrelated issues that disabled
people will achieve equitable provision and increased participation within the
fitness industry. This thesis, however, constrains itself solely to describing work
conducted by the author in the area of inclusive fitness equipment design.
Specifically, this body of work addresses the development and effectiveness of
a user-informed inclusive design standard, intended to offer practical guidance
to fitness equipment designers on designing for disabled people. A standalone
activity in its own right, this area of investigation is also seen to represent an
important and integral element of the IFI’s wider organisational work. It is for this
reason that all research activities have been embarked upon with the IFI’s full
cooperation and support. Notably, the IFI’s permission to utilise a data set from
their fitness equipment accreditation scheme and opportunities to access
leading experts in the field of inclusive fitness, have provided major
contributions to the research process. Further information about the IFI is
provided for interest in Appendix A.
1.2 Introduction to the Study
A desire to address the reported inequalities faced by disabled people in
accessing fitness equipment provided the foremost rationale for commencing
the current study. The research aims and objectives therefore seek to work
collaboratively with disabled people and organisations responsible for the
design and manufacture of fitness equipment in order to investigate the
provision of more inclusive products.
5
1.2.1 Inaccessible Fitness Equipment
The Gary Jelen Sports Foundation (1999a) was amongst the first to reveal a
widespread lack of fitness equipment suitable for inclusive use within
mainstream fitness facilities. Later studies by the English Federation of
Disability Sport (2000), Bennett (2000) and Simunds and McGill (2003) all
supported this initial finding. The full extent of this problem is explored in the
literature review contained within Chapter Two. It is sufficient to note here,
however, that inaccessible fitness equipment is frequently cited as being one of
the most constraining factors affecting the participation of disabled people in
fitness. As the Gary Jelen Sports Foundation (1999a) report advocates, the
issue of equipment accessibility is an area which undeniably requires further
attention:
“The research evidence clearly shows disabled people’s difficulty in
using a full range of current equipment. Because there is so little
equipment available that is designed for inclusive use, this needs to
be resolved otherwise disabled use will always remain secondary to
the non-disabled user and disabled people’s needs will not be met. ”
(GJSF, 1999a, pg 29)
Reasons for this equipment deficiency were solicited by the Gary Jelen Sports
Foundation from ten major European and US manufacturers at the European
Fitness Convention trade event held in March 1999. During these informal
enquiries, suppliers indicated that adjustments could be made to specific pieces
of equipment to make them suitable for use by different disability groups, but a
perceived lack of consumer demand for accessible fitness equipment was also
widely reported (GJSF, 1999b). The launch of the IFI would go some way
towards raising awareness of market need, being in a strong position to
proactively promote the participation of disabled people within the fitness
industry. Able to offer over £3million of investment to fund purchases of
inclusive fitness equipment for selected gyms in the UK, the IFI now provided a
6
direct incentive to equipment suppliers for developing more accessible products
(Baker, 2006). This commercial opportunity rapidly exposed a gap in the
knowledge and expertise of the fitness industry concerning the design needs of
disabled people. Product design teams commonly had little or no experience in
inclusive design and available information was scarce. As yet there was “...no
exhaustive list of features which will make items of fitness equipment fully
accessible to all disabled people” (Sutton, 2003, pg 97). This shortage of design
information was found to not be solely confined to the fitness industry. Those
working within the field of inclusive design itself identified a “pressing need for
coherent and usable design guidance to enable product developers to access
and take advantage of this important new market” (Clarkson et al., 2000, pg
206). In the disability field the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2001, pg 5)
also identified, across all manufacturing industries, that:
“Clear practical guidance needs to be provided for manufacturers
which provide, in strictly practical engineering terms, optimal and
acceptable ranges for particular and commonly found features of
major products.”
(DRC, 2001, pg 5)
Thus, it is the contention of this thesis that contributing to knowledge and
understanding of the needs of disabled people in relation to fitness equipment
design will facilitate more inclusive practices within the fitness equipment
industry.
1.2.2 Equipment Supplier Collaboration
Focusing on the needs of disabled users within fitness equipment design is a
unique area for analysis, offering an attractive commercial opportunity to
existing suppliers in the mainstream marketplace. To this end, thirteen of the
industry’s leading manufacturers agreed to participate in a collaborative
research project which sought to provide them with inclusive design information
7
directly applicable to fitness equipment. In partnership with the IFI, Montgomery
Leisure Services, Sport England and Sheffield Hallam University, these
manufacturers (listed over) have provided financial support and access to
industry data in order for the author to conduct the research described within
this thesis. Recognised as ‘IFI R&D Associate’ suppliers, this commercial group
is estimated to represent over 65% of the UK’s fitness equipment supply
industry (see Chapter Five). Including UK-based and international operators, as
well as varying organisational sizes, between them this diverse mix of
companies are responsible for the design, manufacture and distribution of a
wide variety of fitness products.
IFI R&D (Research and Development) Associate Suppliers:
[ e x f ] / ;k ■*:P IS3 -L H U R
r i t k r
nnic o l leisurelines
r . p ' in f y * d u ra n 'iU ty * r i» li*bU «?y W H A T in/e L IVE FO R
Cpn. A U T . L U S IIPRECO RMove Beyond
pulsefitnessdeigned to perform
[ECH N O G yM
The Wellness CompanyCLIMBE
Other Participating Partners:
v f
Ti nclusive f i tness
eiicntgomery
eisure servicesV*W V O li& S p O r t * C O U -.
SheffieldHallam University
SHARPENS YOUR THINKING
SPORTENGLAND
LO T T E R Y FU N D
8
Alongside a range of representatives from equipment supplier organisations,
disabled and non-disabled people, health and fitness professionals,
independent product designers and other industry experts have all played
important roles within the research process. In order to retain a much-needed
independent status amongst these often competing stakeholders, it was
considered most appropriate to conduct the study within the academic
environment of Sheffield Hallam University, under the patronage of the IFI. In
the author’s opinion, maintaining independence and confidentiality between
commercial partners in this way would enable a more in-depth study to be
undertaken, as well as contributing positively to the integrity and validity of the
work.
1.2.3 Research Aim and Objectives
The direct industrial relevance of the study, combined with the involvement of
multiple industry suppliers, necessitated a commercially sensitive research
approach to be taken. As far as possible, parity would need to be provided to all
involved in terms of access to the study’s outcomes and conclusions. For
reasons which are justified fully in Chapters Three and Five, it was deemed that
under these conditions the most appropriate methodology for providing
information to product designers about the fitness equipment needs of disabled
people would be the development of an inclusive design standard. The aim of
this thesis is thus to test the hypothesis that:
Producing a user-informed, consortium standard is an effective means to
support designers in adopting inclusive design practices for commercial
fitness equipment.
The intention of the study is to provide information specifically for equipment
supplier design staff tasked with implementing inclusive design about the
foremost product needs of disabled people, through investigations involving
9
both equipment designers and a range of users with impairments. In order to
deduce the validity of the hypothesis the following research objectives were set:
(1) To corroborate a perceived lack of inclusive design information
relevant to commercial fitness equipment. This will be achieved through
an examination of literature and other pertinent sources.
(2) To identify the foremost sources of design exclusion for a sample of
disabled users with a range of impairments. This will be achieved through
the practical testing of fitness equipment.
(3) To explore barriers, opportunities and imperatives for the development
of an inclusive design standard with representatives from a sample of
commercial fitness equipment suppliers. This will be achieved through a
series of focus group sessions.
(4) To create an inclusive design standard with consensus on its technical
content across all consulted parties. This will be achieved through
independent expert panel guidance to equitably synthesise data collected
from users and suppliers.
(5) To investigate the impact and effectiveness of the developed inclusive
design standard on design practices within the fitness equipment industry.
This will be achieved through case study and survey methods.
1.3 Structure of the Thesis
This thesis is divided into nine chapters. Predominantly, material has been
grouped and presented by its relevance to each of the five research objectives
outlined above. This also represents a broadly chronological approach to the
presentation of information. At times, however, it was conducive for data from
different stakeholder groups to be gathered simultaneously. Figure 1.2 offers
10
the reader a broad indication of these concurrent events, the chapter within
which they are considered and also the research objective with which they are
primarily concerned.
Chapters One, Two and Three
Review of literature and
research methodology
Research objective (1)
Chapter Four
User identification
of design exclusion
Research objective (2)
Chapter Five
Industrialconsultation
Research objective (3)
roT3cro
c(VEaore>0)•a
ro
ro■ocroco>wa)
T3V>"</>ococoroo33CL
Chapter Seven ChaptersEight and
Nine
Industry Evaluation of Analysis andimplementation standard’s conclusions
period effectiveness
Researchobjective (5)
Chapter Six
Equipment expert consultation
Research objective (4)
Figure 1.2: Overview of concurrent research events
The chapters of the thesis are structured as follows:
Chapter One - Introduction
Chapter One acts as a foundation to the main body of the thesis. It broadly
outlines the context, significance and intent of the research in relation to
providing fitness equipment designers with increased information concerning
the design needs of disabled people.
11
Chapter Two - Literature Review of Research Issues
Chapter Two first assesses the present state of the fitness equipment industry
with respect to accommodating the needs of a range of disabled users. Low
participation rates are identified for disabled people in physical activity and
reports are examined which suggest inaccessible fitness equipment is an
important contributory factor constraining their involvement. Specific
shortcomings of current fitness products are relayed, as is the shortage of
practical information available to aid designers working on the development of
inclusively designed products. This chapter provides a major contribution to the
fulfilment of research objective (1). In outlining the significance and gravity of
the unmet need for knowledge and information, a justification for the study is
also given. With the nature and extent of the problem established, the chapter
goes on to give an informative account of the discipline of inclusive design and
also of consortium standards.
Chapter Three - Research Methodology
Chapter Three outlines the various methodological approaches used to carry
out the research. It additionally offers a detailed rationale for the selection of a
design standard as the preferred dissemination methodology for inclusive
design information across multiple supplier organisations.
Chapter Four - User Identification of Existing Design Exclusion
Chapter Four discusses both the methods and outcomes of establishing
disabled users’ needs for the design of fitness equipment. Utilising an inductive
research approach in the form of practical product testing, with data collection
via questionnaire from a sizeable sample of disabled individuals, conclusions
are drawn on the foremost sources of design exclusion. Collation of data across
a series of cross-sectional studies contributes to the realisation of research
objective (2) and provides the underlying technical content for the inclusive
design standard.
Chapter Five - Industrial Consultation on an Inclusive Design Standard
Chapter Five describes ethnographic investigations involving several fitness
equipment supplier organisations, with data gathering through focus group and
12
observational analysis techniques. Critical reasons which have led to the
current situation of inaccessible equipment being widespread in the
marketplace are explored, together with the industry’s state of readiness for
change. Prevalent attitudes towards the development and usefulness of an
inclusive design standard are scrutinised, along with suppliers’ major concerns
and imperatives for this type of standard. This chapter primarily sets out to fulfil
research objective (3).
Chapter Six - Achieving Consensus on Content for the Inclusive Design
Standard
Chapter Six details the 7-phase development process implemented to equitably
merge data sets collected from both user and supplier stakeholder groups. A
procedural commentary is provided on the use of a committee of technical
experts in order to agree a single set of recommendations on inclusive fitness
equipment design. Particular emphasis is placed on conveying decision-making
processes and conflict resolution strategies employed to gain consensus on the
final technical content of the inclusive design standard. Publication,
dissemination and promotion of the resultant standard are also dealt with in this
chapter. Through synthesising similar and disparate stakeholder requirements,
this chapter addresses research objective (4).
Chapter Seven - Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Inclusive Design
Standard
Chapter Seven presents the results of evaluative work on the effectiveness of
the inclusive design standard in supporting more inclusive product design
practices. After allowing the industry a suitable timeframe for implementation,
case study and survey data are utilised to explore the impact and value of the
standard. As such, this chapter directly addresses research objective (5) and
provides significant evidence with which to consider the validity of the thesis’
governing hypothesis.
Chapter Eight - General Discussion and Conclusions
Chapter Eight reiterates the objectives of the research and discusses the extent
to which each has been met. The major findings of the study are revisited and
13
chief conclusions presented in the form of a reflective and critical commentary.
The legitimacy of the original hypothesis is considered in detail, particularly
within the context of a commercially competing supplier group.
Chapter Nine - Key Conclusions and Contribution to Knowledge
Chapter Nine draws the thesis to a close by consolidating the key research
findings in relation to their original contributions to knowledge. Implications and
opportunities for future work are also presented.
14
Chapter Two: Literature Review of Research Issues
2.1 Introduction
Chapter One introduced the context, as well as the significance, of the research
undertaking to provide fitness equipment design staff with practical
recommendations concerning the design needs of disabled people. The current
chapter reviews the diverse subject areas which must be addressed in order to
accomplish this task. As there is insufficient literature devoted to the exact
subject matter, this chapter considers the key concepts pertaining to the study
in order to lay a foundation for the research. Authoritative studies by notable
writers and academics in their respective fields are presented to convey
principal ideas and introduce existing precedents which have affected the
course of the investigation.
To begin with, the present state of the fitness equipment industry is examined
with respect to accommodating the needs of disabled users, which reports a
widespread problem with inaccessible equipment and a scarcity of information
for designers to address the issue. In this sense, Chapter Two contributes
extensively towards fulfilling research objective (1), by corroborating a
perceived lack of inclusive design information relevant to commercial fitness
equipment.
With the current position established, evidence is presented which outlines the
reasons why the fitness equipment industry should consider the needs of
disabled people, and why inclusive design information should be developed to
support them in this endeavour. In particular, the discipline of inclusive design is
introduced as a viable approach to achieving more equitable fitness equipment
provision for all users. Finally, the chapter investigates the consortium approach
to developing technical standards, as this represents the dissemination
methodology adopted for the results of the research.
15
2.2 Existing Provision for Disabled People
Reliable research into the physical activity levels of disabled people is scarce,
but Heath and Fentem’s comprehensive summary of work to date concludes
that “in general, people with disabilities are less active than persons without
disabilities” (1997, pg 195). This is a scenario reflected within the UK fitness
industry, where many gyms attract a negligible number of disabled users
(Easton, 2003b). The foremost reason attributed to this is the widespread
inaccessibility of fitness facilities. Whilst little empirical research exists, there is
much qualitative and anecdotal evidence which reports provision to be poor.
Various reports suggest that unsuitable equipment is a significant barrier to
disabled people’s participation in fitness, and that a lack of relevant design
information about this population is inhibiting the industry’s ability to respond.
2.2.1 Accessibility of Fitness Equipment
Access4fitness describe training facilities for disabled people as not only being
“sub-standard”, but “practically non-existent” (2001a, pg 22). Their report, which
utilised telephone interviews and surveys with 100 public and private sector
health club managers, 18 head office representatives from leading health club
chains and an undisclosed number of disabled people, concluded that few
disabled people had access to the UK’s 4,300 fitness centres. Hollis (2003, pg
28) concurs that “most clubs and classes still only target able-bodied
exercisers”. This is a problem which is widely reflected in the design of
mainstream fitness equipment. The seminal work in this area was published in
1999 by the Gary Jelen Sports Foundation and concerned itself with “the
degree to which fitness facilities and their equipment could be accessed by
disabled people” (1999a, pg 4). Their analysis, based on survey data from 106
active and non-active disabled ‘users’ and two ‘provider’ surveys involving 133
Chief Leisure Officers and 290 local authority facility managers, found that only
8.8% of facilities indicated any investment in fitness equipment suitable for
disabled people. This lack of investment was despite disabled people being
16
regarded as a key market segment by the majority of centres (GJSF, 1999a).
As Sport England reports, it is definitely “the exception rather than the rule for
equipment in fitness gyms to be usable by disabled people” (2002b, pg 58).
The vast majority of fitness facilities offer opportunities for both cardiovascular
(heart/lungs) and resistance (muscle strength) training. In order for disabled
people to participate in a well-rounded fitness programme, a range of
cardiovascular and resistance equipment must be available and accessible
(GJSF, 1999a; Sport England, 2002b). Flowever, there is little evidence to
suggest that a full range of user requirements are currently catered for within
either product category. Cardiovascular equipment, such as treadmills and
bikes, is widely criticised for an over concentration on lower limb exercise.
Rimmer et al. (2004, pg 421) found that a common recommendation from a
series of focus groups with fitness professionals and disabled consumers was
the provision of more “upper body aerobic exercise equipment”, as
complementary machines for wheelchair users are generally lacking. There are
also calls to reduce the effort level required to initiate or maintain cardiovascular
exercise, such as the starting speeds on treadmills, because the current
requirements are too high for some disabled people (Disabled Motorist, 2004).
Further criticisms of cardiovascular products are that they have too many
settings and adjustments which cause confusion, and that displays and buttons
are difficult to read (McGough, 1999; Rimmer et al., 2005). The construction of
many resistance products is also problematic, with Petrick (2002) and Rimmer
(2005a) both describing challenges for a variety of mobility impaired individuals
when manoeuvring or transferring onto these units. Bennett (1999) provides a
specific example by way of upper body equipment where seats are normally
fixed firmly in place, meaning they cannot be removed to make space for
wheelchair users to access. Weight settings are also criticised on resistance
products for being difficult to reach, not starting light enough for disabled
individuals with reduced strength and for being labelled with text which is too
small to be read by those with visual impairments (McGough, 1999; Bennett,
1999; Rimmer et al., 2005). Requests for larger handles and straps to assist
people with limited grip to hold on to are also cited (McGough, 1999; Rimmer et
al., 2004).
17
Due to the access barriers caused by equipment, Holmes (2002, pg 14) asserts
that using a gym may be “physically impossible” for some disabled people,
whilst Able (2005, pg 41) goes so far as to say that many fitness centres have
“equipment that would be difficult or even dangerous for people with mobility or
sensory impairments to use”. What is clear is that there are various and prolific
design features making existing fitness products inaccessible to disabled
people. The evidence points strongly towards the need to put in place better
equipment provision for disabled participants, which includes both
cardiovascular and resistance products. This thesis therefore concerns itself
with providing design recommendations for both equipment types, rather than
focussing on a single item or type of product.
2.2.2 Previous Efforts to Design for Disability
The preceding section generally upholds the Gary Jelen Sports Foundation
view that “there are currently very few developments in respect of fitness
equipment and its suitability of use by disabled people” (1999b, pg 1). This does
not mean that attempts have not been made to better accommodate the needs
of disabled users within fitness equipment design. To inform the present
research, these previous efforts are reviewed to provide insight and to educate
as to their successes and shortcomings.
As exercise for disabled people has historically been provided through
physiotherapy and rehabilitation centres, the majority of equipment intended for
use by this population is specifically designed for them. Often targeted at
specific user groups with particular impairments or injuries, it is not merely
standard equipment that has been modified, so is rarely found in health clubs
(Bennett, 2000). This first generation equipment therefore does not enable
disabled people to exercise alongside non-disabled counterparts in a non
medical environment. Although some rehabilitation equipment has been refined
and simplified to cross over to the fitness market, these products have many
disadvantages. Bennett (1999, pg 33) reports that they often “require fussy
18
adjustments and professional supervision - not to mention that they were
produced in small quantities for the healthcare industry and were, therefore,
expensive”. High purchase costs combined with small perceived market sizes
result in unfavourable returns on investment being projected by club operators.
Availability is consequently limited and most adapted medical equipment that
has crossed over to the fitness market has therefore achieved minimal success
(Rimmer et al., 2004).
A very small number of mainstream fitness equipment companies have
ventured tentatively into the disability market. In the UK only two non-medical
equipment suppliers were found to have actively tried to address the needs of
disabled people in any way. Howard Davies of PowerSport, seeing “potential for
disabled users to be able to access gym equipment by creating machines which
could be used by able bodied and disabled alike”, created the innovative
‘Integra’ resistance equipment range in 1993 (Davies, 2004, pg 4). This
development was followed in 1997 by the launch of the ‘Equality’ resistance
equipment range by Pulse Fitness. These two offerings, shown in Figure 2.1,
featured modified seating arrangements which facilitated wheelchair access,
enabling both companies to set about selling benefits that were years ahead of
their time. Financially however, these ranges cost more to manufacture and
sold for the same price as standard products but in relatively small quantities
(Clowes, 2007).
A conceivable downfall of these early efforts to include disabled people was
their concentration on wheelchair users with little, if any, consideration given to
individuals with sensory, cognitive or other physical impairments. Wheelchair
users only account for around six percent of the disabled population, so as
Petrick (2002, pg 4) explains although “some equipment companies have
designed and built equipment specifically for use by people who use
wheelchairs... because wheelchair users make up such a small percentage of
health club users, owners are unwilling to invest the money and space for these
machines”. Bennett (1999) also describes the risk involved for fitness centres in
putting money into what are seen as ‘specialised’ markets.
19
— —
Source: PowerSport Marketing Literature, 1993
(a) Integra resistance range by PowerSport
Figure 2.1: Early examples of wheelchair accessible fitness equipment
20
C////9A
Source: Pulse Fitness Marketing Literature, 1997
(b) Equality resistance range by Pulse Fitness
Figure 2.1: Early examples of wheelchair accessible fitness equipment
21
Even in centres offering accessible resistance products, disabled users cannot
achieve a complete training programme without comparable developments
being made in accessible cardiovascular equipment. Bennett (1999)
summarises the vicious cycle which has thus evolved, where disabled people
stay away from a club because the equipment is not there, but the equipment is
not there because the people who need it stay away. To end this paradoxical
situation, a variety of accessible cardiovascular and resistance products must
be made widely available in fitness centres. It is concluded from previous
attempts to accommodate the needs of disabled people that this will only be
achieved if products can be made commercially viable. The present research
takes regard of these two factors, firstly through the consideration of both
equipment categories and secondly by advocating an inclusive approach to
product design, thereby encompassing non-disabled and disabled users across
a range of impairment types to maximise market potential.
2.2.3 Scarcity of Design Information
Functional differences must be taken into account when considering the design
needs of disabled people. For example, disabled individuals may have reduced
muscular strength and endurance, weakness or paralysis occurring down one
side of the body, or the complete absence of a limb (Rimmer, 1994; Rimmer et
al., 1999). Posture, balance and mobility differences are often found with
conditions such as multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy, whilst arthritis may affect
range of motion, grip strength and finger dexterity (McGough, 1999; Rimmer,
2002). For those with neurological conditions blurred vision may be apparent,
alongside impaired motor control in the form of involuntary limb movements
such as spasm and tremor (Rimmer, 2002). There are also numerous sensory,
cognitive and information processing variations to consider. This is a far from
exhaustive list, but serves to highlight the variety and complexity of concerns to
be addressed when designing for a range of disabled users. Evidence of the
overwhelming inaccessibly of products strongly suggests that fitness equipment
designers are failing to fully consider these factors. This thesis asserts that a
shortage of coherent information about the design needs of disabled people is a
22
key reason contributing to this situation. A deficiency of technical data directly
relevant to fitness products is inhibiting the abilities of product designers, as
Petrick (2002) rationalises:
“The requirements for accessibility of fitness equipment are not as
carefully spelled out as those for architectural accessibility. Physical
activity and disability is a developing field. There is simply not
enough information on the effects of different types of exercise on
different disabilities, not to mention what types of movement or
activities would be most beneficial for which groups. This lack of
research means we do not always know how people with disabilities
can use existing equipment, what modifications work best, and what
results can be expected. ”
(Petrick, 2002, pg 3)
Bradtmiller (2000, pg 543) agrees that for the most part designers “have not
deliberately avoided accommodating people with disabilities; they have been
hampered by a lack of appropriate anthropometric data on which to craft a truly
universal design”. In an assessment of the current state of anthropometric
research on disabled people Bradtmiller (2000, pg 543) concludes that
variability clearly exists compared to non-disabled people but data “is largely
fragmented and difficult to use”. Many existing studies have sample sizes too
small for reliable generalisations to be made about the whole population for the
purposes of design, whilst those with adequate sample sizes focus on specific
applications, such as seating, so the usefulness of the resulting data is limited.
According to Goswami’s (1997) review, comparing dimensions amongst studies
is also problematic due to little uniformity or standardisation of measurement
techniques. A further restriction, outlined by Peebles and Norris (1998), is that
data on other abilities also applicable to design, for instance motor skills,
perceptual and cognitive abilities, are not included. Whilst there is an irrefutable
need for reliable anthropometric data for disabled people, Bradtmiller (2000)
outlines the enormity of this undertaking and the extensive resources and
timescales associated with this task. In the absence of such data, fitness
equipment designers are forced to seek alternative sources of design
information.
23
Although literature on designing for disabled users exists, Clarkson et al. (2000)
concede that its wide dispersion across different specialisms makes it difficult
for designers to adequately inform themselves. Their research also suggests
that product designers often need guidance in interpreting the available
resources. Ekberg (undated, pg 1) suggests that one reason for this is that “in
general, accessibility guidelines raise the awareness and understanding of
designers and help them ask the right questions rather than to provide specific
answers or numbers”. The literature tends to offer generic commentaries on
design features but provides little in the way of detailed and definitive guidance
which can be immediately converted into technical specifications. The current
research intends to provide equipment supplier design staff with a more
effective resource, in the form of a design standard developed specifically for
commercial fitness equipment, to support their adoption of inclusive design
practices. This work will address the pressing need identified by Clarkson et al.
(2000, pg 206) for “coherent and usable design guidance to enable product
developers to access and take advantage of this important new market”.
2.3 Incentives for Increasing Equipment Accessibility
The focus of this thesis is to provide recommendations to fitness equipment
designers as to the design needs of disabled people. The analysis would not be
complete, however, without a brief review of why disabled people should be
considered in the design of such products.
2.3.1 Market Epidemiology
An obvious driver for the inclusion of disabled people in fitness equipment
design is the magnitude of this population, with official sources suggesting that
there are around 11 million disabled adults living in the UK, equivalent to over
20% of the adult population (ONS, 2004). Population surveys are widely
acknowledged to underreport due to ‘disability’ having no scientific or even a
24
commonly agreed definition, making it a complex and difficult phenomenon to
measure (Pfeiffer, 2002). It is likely therefore that the actual number of disabled
people is significantly higher than these estimates suggest. While absolute
quantification remains elusive, one certainty is that the disabled population is
growing. Alongside medical advances and lifestyle changes, the incidence of
disability is rising rapidly due to population aging and that fact that prevalence
increases with age for many impairments (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2005).
Estimates suggest that almost half the English adult population will be over 50
years of age as soon as 2020, making this population an important and
emerging market sector, as the data from Clarkson et al. (2007, pg 1-21) in
Figure 2.2 supports. These demographic factors indicate that the scale of
exclusion from inaccessible product design is considerable. Accordingly, the
positive impact of addressing this issue is far-reaching.
40c o
4—»JT3
3 20 Q.0 CL
1 0<U CF>
£ -20^ 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75+
Age band
Source: Clarkson et al., 2007, pg 1-21
Figure 2.2: Change in population within each age band over time
2002-2012 Emerging markets
■ 2002-2022 I 1. n l ilPI
Declining markets
2.3.2 Health Promotion
In addition to being a sizeable market, Houldey (2003, pg 20) believes that
“most disabled people are eager to improve their health and quality of life
through physical activity”. Disabled people are highly susceptible to secondary
25
health conditions, such as pressure sores, high cholesterol, obesity,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes and osteoporosis, with some studies
suggesting incidences of three to four times those found in non-disabled age-
matched peers (Pope and Tarlov, 1991; Kailes, 2003). Although excess wear
and tear due to variations in standard physiology and the effects of medication
may partially account for these differences, physical inactivity is frequently cited
as a major contributory factor (Ward et al., 2001; Kailes, 2003; Hoffmann,
2005). Rimmer (2005b, pg 43) describes the worrying “cycle of physical
inactivity and disability”, shown in Figure 2.3, in which the disabling
consequences of inactivity cause secondary conditions as well as compounding
the effects of the main disabling condition, inducing further inactivity. Eventually,
additional impairment and loss of function can adversely affect an individual’s
ability to perform daily living activities, eroding their ability to care for
themselves and causing a loss of personal independence (Goodwin and
Compton, 2004). For these reasons, Rimmer (2002) contends that many of the
vast range of potential health benefits associated with exercise have greater
relevance and importance for disabled people when compared with the general
population.
Due to mounting evidence of the substantial benefits of exercise for disabled
people, health promotion activities targeted at this population are increasing
(Rimmer, 1999). Alessandri (2000) reasons that one consequence of health
promotion activities is a society in which the values of health, wellbeing and
physical fitness gain greater importance, in turn creating a demand for fitness
services. With a growing awareness of the need for fitness training for disabled
people emerging, Rimmer (1999) believes fitness centres are now poised to
become the future centres of health promotion for those with impairments.
According to Rimmer et al. (2005) many outdoor environments are highly
inaccessible, hence indoor health clubs are a necessary and viable alternative
for disabled people to participate in physical activity. Conviser (2000) also
promotes health clubs as excellent purveyors of selected health services due to
their geographical distribution, creating ease of access for regular participation,
and their excess capacity to meet increasing volumes of interested consumers.
26
Increased effort to engage in
physical activity
Onset or increase of disability
Physicalinactivity
Development of secondary conditions
Source: Rimmer, 2005b, Figure 1, pg 43
Figure 2.3: Cyclical relationships between disability and
physical inactivity
2.3.3 Commercial Viability
All fitness providers have legislative duties under the Disability Discrimination
Act (DDA) (HMSO, 1995; TSO, 2005) to make reasonable adjustments to
accommodate the needs of disabled people, yet Easton (2004) believes that
inclusion should in no way be viewed as an obligation; it should be viewed as
an opportunity. As a consumer-driven business, Easton (2004) argues that it
makes sound commercial sense for the fitness industry to be responsive to an
increasing desire amongst disabled people to maximise their health. In fact,
Hartley (2004) predicts industry growth rates over the next few years will be
largely dependent on the success of health club operators’ and equipment
suppliers’ joint efforts to broaden the customer base and grow the market. Older
and disabled exercisers are seen as particularly lucrative and loyal sectors of
the marketplace that most health clubs have completely overlooked (Houldey,
27
2003). Not only do these largely untapped markets offer substantial
membership potential in their own right, but many of these users will be
accompanied by family, friends or personal assistants who may bring added
revenue and secondary spend to facilities (Easton, 2005a). Consequently, any
short term costs associated with improving accessibility need to be viewed as
an investment to meet the needs of a growing number of consumers who will
use more inclusive facilities.
2.4 Creating Inclusive Equipment
Equipment is an essential factor in the gym experience, as Rimmer (2003, pg 2)
points out: “Let's not forget why people go to fitness facilities in the first place -
to use the equipment”. With this in mind, taking an approach which seeks to
include the needs of disabled people in design is important, yet it appears that
information currently available to fitness equipment design teams may not fully
enable them to create truly inclusive products.
2.4.1 Importance of Equipment Design
Rimmer (2003) outlines the importance of having equipment that is comfortable
and appropriate in order to draw in and retain disabled members:
“It is difficult to imagine why anyone who uses a wheelchair would
want to join a local fitness facility. Why spend money on a health club
membership that only allows the person access to a few pieces of
exercise equipment while the rest of the members have
access to all the equipment?”
(Rimmer, 2003, pg 2)
McDonnell (2005) believes that equipment manufacturers have always helped
to define the fitness industry and therefore a strong precedent already exists for
28
utilising equipment design to attract new markets. McGough et al. (2004)
identify adaptations to make products smaller and less intimidating to female
users, whilst Voris (2004) testifies to a recent increase in fitness products
intended for use by children. In a similar manner, a clear opportunity now exists
for equipment suppliers to draw disabled people towards exercise by proactively
encompassing the needs of this population within the design of their products.
All fitness centres operate within spatial and financial limitations, leading
access4fitness (2001b, pg 2) to conclude that “inclusive equipment is the way
forward, particularly in line with space and cost implications... They save space
by eliminating the need for fitness centres to 'double-up' on equipment". Ward et
al. (2001) agree that there is a place for equipment specifically designed for
disabled people, for example in the home or in hospitals or rehabilitation
centres, but in mainstream fitness centres inclusive equipment is preferable as
it is far more effective in meeting the needs of all. By providing equipment that
includes disabled people whilst not precluding others, facilities are able to
increase their market size without conceding any existing membership.
Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that inclusive equipment is also more
desirable from a user perspective as Harris, an experienced disabled athlete,
explains:
“I didn't want equipment that was specifically for disabled people - 1
wanted an integrated range - whereby design features are introduced
which enable disabled people to exercise unassisted, so that they
too, if they prefer, can be afforded the anonymity normally reserved
for able-bodied people.”
Harris (access4fitness, 2001a, pg 38)
In this thesis, the design approach advocated as being most able to achieve this
dual usage requirement is that of ‘inclusive design’.
29
2.4.2 The Inclusive Design Approach
The British Standard 7000-6:2005 Design management systems - Managing
inclusive design, defines inclusive design as:
“Design of mainstream products and/or services that are accessible
to, and usable by, people with the widest range of abilities within the
widest range of situations without the need for special
adaptation or design. ”
(BSI, 2005a, pg 4)
The concept originally emerged in the mid-1980s as an extension of barrier-free
architectural design (Mace, 1985). Coleman (2001a, pg 46) believes that
“thinking on inclusive design is still in its infancy”, but according to Keates and
Clarkson (2003a) inclusive design is beginning to mature into a respected
discipline. Fields such as industrial design and ergonomics have increasingly
given users’ needs precedence in product design processes which have
historically been largely determined by engineering and manufacturing
requirements. Supporters of inclusive design contend that many designers
“design instinctively for ‘able-bodied’ young people”, resulting in products that
are generally difficult to use by elderly citizens and disabled people (Cardoso et
al., 2002, pg 47). Coleman (2001b, pg 4.21) describes these users as being
simply “disabled by design”. The intention of inclusive design is to address the
needs of those excluded from or marginalised by these mainstream design
practices. Designers are not forced to focus on specialist 'disability markets' but
are instead encouraged to expand the boundaries of their current mainstream
markets and products. To achieve this, accessibility requirements must be
considered from the start of product development, they cannot be addressed in
retrospect at the conclusion of the design process (Ekberg, undated).
Inclusive design is founded in a real understanding of the needs and wants of
consumers and aims to accommodate the requirements of people of all ages,
sizes and abilities. Its advocates are keen to note however, that not all products
30
can be made totally accessible (Keates and Clarkson, 2003a). Consequently,
definitions of inclusive design are qualified by a common-sense approach to
what is reasonable and by an understanding of what is practical (DRC, 2001).
Not only does it make sound business sense to ensure, within reason, that
products address the needs of the widest possible audience, it also delivers on
the corporate social responsibilities of organisations and offers visible signs of
compliance with anti-discrimination legislation. Keates and Clarkson (2003a)
and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2001) argue strongly that
inclusive design is in fact a necessary feature of all good design. However,
despite these benefits, there is at present surprisingly little industry uptake of
inclusive design (Clarkson et al., 2000).
2.4.3 Existing Inclusive Design Information
A positive interest in inclusive design was revealed during the l~Design project’s
national workshop held to examine industry attitudes and barriers to its uptake,
which was attended by over 150 participants from a diverse range of UK
companies (Keates et al., 2000). Most participants stated however, that they
would only implement inclusive design if it was easy to do, or if a consultancy
would do if for them, and provided that it did not increase the cost of the
product. Dong et al. (2003a) similarly concluded that most companies receptive
to the idea of designing inclusively, wanted ready-packaged information about
product users or to refer to specialists to obtain the user's perspective. While
companies agreed with the principles of designing inclusively, Keates and
Clarkson (2003a) found that many considered it an impractical method to adopt
due to insufficient time or financial resources, and inadequate access to, or
inexperience dealing directly with, product users. With these issues in mind, it
does not seem unreasonable to suggest that provision of a technical standard,
comprised of relevant user information, would help to facilitate an increased
uptake of inclusive design practices.
Predominantly, existing inclusive design information appears to be concerned
with organisational management processes, or with providing data by which
manufacturers can define the potential market size for their products and
31
develop strong business cases. Keates et al. (2000) and Clarkson et at. (2000)
believe that the best way to encourage implementation of inclusive design is to
persuade senior management of the need for it, hence it is assumed that by
focusing on the market benefits of inclusive design, companies will be more
likely to develop new, more accessible products. Whilst this is undoubtedly
important, Keates and Clarkson (2003a) also maintain that there is limited use
in promoting inclusive design if no guidance is provided on how to go about
producing inclusive products. These authors have therefore been instrumental
in developing means of assessing the inclusivity of existing products and the
ability to quantify the level of design exclusion (Keates and Clarkson, 2003a).
As a measure of success for inclusive design, these product assessment
approaches seek to determine the number of users excluded from product
usage as well as the reasons for their exclusion (Clarkson et al., 2003; Keates
and Clarkson, 2003a). Methods commonly involve an analysis of user functional
capability scales and physical attributes in relation to the requirements imposed
by the product. The assessment results are subsequently mapped onto national
population data to provide a quantitative estimate of the proportion of users
excluded due to the demands the product places on key user capabilities
(Cardoso et al., 2002; Clarkson et al., 2003). Quantifying design exclusion in
this manner assists in the visualisation of the scale of exclusion, gives some
indication as to its source and also provides a measure of the potential for
improvement (Cardoso et al., 2002; Keates and Clarkson, 2003b). Keates and
Clarkson (2003b, pg 69) however, acknowledge that whilst it is “useful to know
who and how many can use the product, that information will not provide
guidance on how to include more”. Similarly, Dong et al. (2002) believe it is a
lack of accessible inclusive design information that still challenges inclusive
design practice, whilst Choi et al. (2006) hypothesise that one of the reasons for
the slow adoption of inclusive design is that inclusive design resources are not
adequate for facilitating designers’ tasks. According to the Disability Rights
Commission (2001) what is accessible often appears to be an uncertain matter
of subjective judgement, and designers desperately need support in making
inclusive design decisions. Clarkson et al. (2000) identity a specific need to
further develop knowledge and understanding of the requirements of product
end users so that designers are adequately equipped to successfully implement
32
inclusive design. The study presented in this thesis aims to address this need to
provide equipment design staff with explicit user requirements through the
development of a technical inclusive design standard. Commercial fitness
equipment has thus far received little, if any, attention from the inclusive design
community and it is therefore speculated that the fitness industry’s adoption of
more inclusive practices will be supported by providing equipment design teams
with specific user requirement data. In taking this approach the research does
not explicitly attempt to quantify design exclusion, but instead offers a
potentially complementary method of countering design exclusion by equipping
product designers with technical guidance on how to include more of the
population. This user information will be presented in the form of an inclusive
design standard produced specifically for the fitness equipment industry utilising
a consortium model.
2.5 Consortium Model Standards
The British Standards Institution (BSI) defines a standard as:
"... a document, established by consensus and approved by a
recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules,
guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results. ”
(BSI, 2005b, pg 5)
Standards are written in response to the needs of those who will use them and
where there is a defined market need. They seek to codify good practice
through consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and a rigorous
development process, and are often regarded by the degree of consensus
needed for their development and use. The most widely accepted hierarchy of
standards is those developed at international, regional and national level, but it
emerged in the 1990s that this traditional structure was increasingly being
supplemented, particularly in areas of fast moving technology, by industry-
based standards organisations producing consortium standards (ISO, 2003a).
33
Consortium standards are those developed through consensus amongst a small
group of organisations, usually like-minded companies, formed to undertake an
activity that is beyond the resources of any one member (ASTM, undated a).
Stakeholder consultation typically takes place through steering groups and
review panels chosen to be representative and close to the business issues
(BSI, undated a).
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has criticised consortia
approaches for generally only representing agreement between major market
players and therefore not having the wider consensus which is typical of their
own organisation’s standards (ISO, 2003a). They do however recognise that
such documents are meeting a market need, due mainly to the fact that they
can be produced relatively quickly and are therefore more responsive to the
rapid product development and marketing cycles of some industries (ISO,
2003a). Additional benefits of consortium standards include early competitive
advantage and strategic influence for companies in new and emerging areas,
as well as brand visibility and credibility by sponsorship of good practice (BSI,
undated a). The dynamic between standards consensus and control is outlined
briefly in Figure 2.4.
Benefits:-Consumer Av -Marketing Po -Risk Manager -Credibility
Consensus
' ISO \ (International)
European(Regional)
British(National)
Consortium
IndividualCompany
Benefits:-Speed of Response-Early Competitive Advantage-Flexibility-Address New Fields /Technologies
Control
Adapted from: BSI, undated a, pg 4
Figure 2.4: The standards consensus I control dynamic
34
Although offering a narrower consensus, the consortium approach is still widely
recognised as an acceptable means to develop standards due to its speed of
delivery in new areas and responsiveness to market needs, as illustrated in
Figure 2.4. For these reasons this thesis has employed a consortium approach,
in association with disabled people, commercial fitness equipment design staff,
wider organisational representatives and other industry experts, to develop a
standard in the new and emerging field of inclusive fitness equipment design.
2.6 Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter has been to examine the present state of fitness
equipment design and to assess the current availability of appropriate design
information with respect to accommodating the needs of disabled people. It has
revealed that there are few disabled participants within mainstream fitness
facilities and that there is evidence to suggest that an important factor
constraining their involvement is due to widespread inaccessible fitness
equipment. Previous attempts to include disabled users have not reflected the
broad spectrum of potential impairments or the range of products required for a
well-rounded fitness programme. This thesis seeks to broaden this narrow focus
and to maximise market potential by considering the needs of differently
impaired and non-impaired individuals, as well as both cardiovascular and
resistance products.
Alongside increasing drives towards health promotion, the magnitude and
changing demographics of the disability population have been highlighted as
reasons why disabled people should be considered in the design of commercial
fitness equipment. Within this analysis, it has been identified that fitness
facilities are well positioned to become health promotion centres for disabled
people and that targeting their latent demand for exercise could prove mutually
beneficial. With equipment forming such an essential element of the gym
experience, the importance of its design in attracting and retaining disabled
users cannot be underestimated.
35
Having demonstrated a clear demand for the supply of more accessible
equipment, the concept of inclusive design is introduced as a socially and
commercially acceptable approach that can draw in disabled users without
negatively impacting on product usage by non-disabled individuals. Thus far
commercial fitness equipment has received little, if any, attention from the
inclusive design community and it is therefore contended that the fitness
industry’s adoption of more inclusive practices is being impeded by a shortage
of reliable design information. Due to inconsistencies surrounding definitions of
disability and measurement techniques, demographic and anthropometric data
are scarce, or worse, inaccurate. In this respect Chapter Two has met research
objective (1), examining literature and other pertinent sources to corroborate a
lack of information relevant to the inclusive design of commercial fitness
equipment. It is inferred that provision of industry-specific data, in the form of a
technical standard, would be an effective means of facilitating an inclusive
approach, assisting equipment supplier design staff to identify opportunities and
respond with confidence to the needs of disabled users. Finally, with the
inclusive design of mainstream commercial fitness equipment in its infancy,
using a consortium model for the development of the standard is established as
being an efficient and responsive approach to addressing these new market
needs.
36
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The inclusive design of mainstream commercial fitness equipment is a newly
emerging field. The current study is therefore presented as an exploratory
investigation of the development of standards in this area and also the
introduction of inclusive design guidance into an industry. From a
methodological perspective, two distinct topic areas needed to be addressed in
order to provide recommendations on the needs of disabled people and monitor
the effects of their implementation in relation to fitness equipment design. Firstly,
a rationale was required for selecting a standard as the preferred medium for
disseminating inclusive design data, as well as the identification of guiding
principles to govern its development. Secondly, a research design needed to be
created which would ensure that the data collection and analysis methods could
reasonably be expected to generate appropriate content for the standard and
assess its subsequent application by the industry. These topics are discussed in
the current chapter.
3.2 Rationale for Development of a Standard
Standards are an important part of the information infrastructure that guides
design (ASTM, undated b). Standardisation endeavours to improve the
suitability of products for their intended purpose (BSI, 2005b), a key reason for
this thesis’ assertion that they would be effective in influencing inclusive fitness
equipment design. No previously published evidence could be found concerning
the use of a design standard to support product designers with the practical
implementation of inclusive design, particularly within the fitness industry. There
is, however, ample evidence of the critical role standards play in the commercial
advancement of new technologies and their influence on product design in a
diverse range of alternative industries (ASTM, undated a). As well as assisting
37
with bringing products from development through to market, BSI (undated a, pg
2) advocate standards as being able to “stimulate innovation through the quick
and efficient dissemination of critical information”. Creation of standards can
therefore help to propel an industry forward, making visionary ideas and
concepts, such as inclusive design, a reality in the marketplace. The graphical
representation offered by BSI (undated a), shown in Figure 3.1, of this pull
through from research and development to market, highlights the significant
impact of standards in the pre-production phases of product lifecycles. In these
early design stages, standards reduce waste from products that will later not be
accepted and therefore represent an established and proven methodology to
improve efficiency, drive down costs and accelerate time to market (BSI,
undated b). According to Peebles and Norris (1998), the application of
ergonomic or performance data in particular can quicken the iterative process
from concept through to detailed design.
Intellectual property generation & value add
/ Pure / research
Appliedresearch
development-' /Science Base Technology Applications Markets
’ / Product development& commercialisation
► Pull through from R&D to market
Source: BSI, undated a, pg 2
Figure 3.1: Role of standards in supporting pull through
from R&D to market
Figure 3.1 highlights the beneficial aspects of utilising standards in the design
process, yet Keates and Clarkson (2003a) urge caution in their use to avoid a
38
culture of minimum compliance, where products are designed to meet minimum
requirements only. Arguably, a well written standard should ensure that even at
this basic level an acceptable product results. Keates and Clarkson (2003a)
additionally believe that designers can find standards dry and uninspiring. The
current study therefore aimed to be prescriptive about the functionality required
of fitness equipment, without unnecessarily constraining the creativity of product
designers by stipulating the exact mechanisms by which these outcomes must
be achieved. As with most design tools, the inclusive design standard is not
intended for use in isolation or to fully replace user involvement in the product
development process. Programmes of consumer testing and evaluation will
always be necessary, but the early application of relevant user data should
make this a far more efficient and effective experience (Peebles and Norris,
1998). As a common mechanism for the delivery of design information,
particularly in the initial stages of product development, standards also offer a
familiar format to designers for the delivery of new topics such as inclusive
design.
Legislation and regulation are identified by Keates and Clarkson (2003a) as
being highly effective long term strategies for encouraging inclusivity within the
design process. The root cause of their success is attributed to enforceability
and the potential for the application of punitive measures to transgressors.
Adherence to most standards is, however, on a purely voluntary basis. Voris
(2004) consequently indicates the importance of commercial support for the
implementation of standards, making particular reference to the fitness industry:
“The standards in the fitness industry are voluntary. It is certainly in a
company’s best interest to follow the standards that exist but there
are no laws that mandate that they do so. Widespread adoption and
use of existing industry standards has been growing, and pressure
from industry competition will cause this trend to continue. ”
(Voris, 2004, pg 31)
39
The concept of industry competition indicates that standards should have direct
commercial relevance and be developed in consultation with appropriate
industry partners. As well as implementing a consortium approach to developing
the inclusive design standard, this demanded a research methodology with
significant stakeholder involvement across a broad range of groups including
disabled people, equipment supplier design staff, wider organisational
representatives and other health and fitness professionals. It is for this reason
that at the outset of the study the author identified six operating principles to
guide this discourse and to govern the standard’s overall development process.
3.3 Guiding Development Principles
The following six guiding development principles established for the study
ensured cohesive, focussed and clear working practices and aims for the
standard.
3.3.1 Confidentiality
Shared insight and knowledge capture from communal working would only
benefit the development of the standard if those involved felt able to give open
and honest feedback. The study therefore aimed to preserve the anonymity of
participants, by replacing individual’s names with identification numbers during
data collection and analysis, and gaining informed consent wherever possible.
Commercially sensitive data, which could be traced back to a specific
organisation or impinge on intellectual property rights, was handled in
confidence, with the author signing confidentiality agreements with the majority
of commercial partners. The impact of confidentiality constraints on the
research methodology was that findings had to be presented in a generic format,
describing overall trends rather than detailing specific occurrences, also
necessitating the involvement of multiple participants in every stakeholder group.
40
3.3.2 Equity
The investigation aimed to provide all interested stakeholders with equal
opportunity to participate and, particularly in the case of equipment supplier
organisations, equitable access to the research findings. A cross-industry
approach, rather than providing bespoke information to each individual
equipment supplier, was therefore considered an important aspect of the
research design to retain the cooperation of all stakeholders. Simultaneous
delivery of information would avoid any single supplier gaining competitive
advantage by having an extended lead-in time and would additionally maximise
industry exposure to the standard.
3.3.3 Transparent Process for Accreditation
Standards help to ensure consistent product quality and can prescribe the level
of accomplishment required for external certification, making their use
favourable with accrediting bodies (BSI, undated b). Financial contributions to
the research by the IFI came with the remit to provide this organisation with a
clear and transparent process by which they could evaluate and endorse
inclusive products. The inclusive design standard therefore had to deliver a
consistent and repeatable procedure against which fitness products could be
appraised. Fixed specifications, with minimal subjectivity, would need
accompanying test methods, with obvious pass or fail criteria, to give clear
determinants of success. During its development process, essential information
regarding the standard would need to be accessible to all parties involved and
decisions on its content reached through consensus. Mechanisms had to be put
in place to ensure that all views were considered equally, that no one interest
dominated and that appeals against decisions were possible. In practice this
was achieved through the use of a panel of appropriately qualified experts to
make independent judgements on the content of the standard and the inclusivity
of product features. The research design was thus created such that it was
41
analogous to the established and respected 7-phase process utilised by BSI
(2005c) for the development of British Standards.
3.3.4 User-friendly Format
Inclusive design information had to be presented in a clear and systematic
format to assist equipment supplier design staff in identifying accessibility
shortcomings. It was important to provide only relevant data and also to avoid
information overload about this new design topic. The BS EN 957 series (BSI,
all dates) were considered to be the most prominent and well-known safety
standards employed by product designers in the fitness industry and as such,
the decision was made to replicate this familiar and product-specific style when
formatting the inclusive design standard.
3.3.5 Aid to Effective Communication
Clarkson et al. (2000) insist that good design guidance must enable the whole
range of professionals engaged in multi-disciplinary product development to
share and exchange knowledge. Defining terminology and establishing a
common language through the standard was considered particularly important
for effective communication and to ensure that all decision-making processes
were well-informed. Presenting inclusive design information in a written format,
which could be shared quickly via electronic communication, was also
considered necessary considering the global distribution of fitness equipment
design teams and organisations.
3.3.6 Impacts Early in Existing Design Processes
Cost concerns are frequently reported as a major barrier to the implementation
of inclusive design (Keates et al., 2000). The author therefore heeded advice
42
from Coleman (2001a, pg 42) to provide “...strategies for identifying and
rectifying design exclusion, especially in the early stages of the design process,
where the biggest cost savings will be achieved”. Direct discourse with industry
representatives would therefore be a vital component of the research design to
assess their current capabilities and validate the achievability of any new
proposals.
3.4 Research Design
The research design was primarily concerned with practical data collection and
analysis to enable the study’s aims and guiding principles to be met. The
strategies and techniques employed sought to produce a research methodology
that would ensure valid answers to the research questions posed (Manstead
and Semin, 1988). Wadsworth (1998) suggests that when the research aim is to
create and sustain change, it is important to encourage the close involvement of
those who will directly benefit from the work. Utilising this participatory action
research approach is beneficial as those involved often have the greatest
knowledge within the area under investigation. A systematic set of studies have
therefore been used to obtain information from those stakeholder groups
deemed critical in influencing and achieving inclusive fitness equipment design.
At the highest level these three stakeholder groups, as Figure 3.2 illustrates,
were identified as (a) disabled people, (b) commercial fitness equipment
suppliers (predominantly design staff, but also including some non-design
related organisational representatives) and (c) health and fitness professionals.
The overall strategy behind the research design was to elicit and codify
pertinent information from each group. Systematic and objective filtering
methods would then be implemented to draw conclusions regarding the priority
design requirements to increase the accessibility of fitness products. Primary
data would be collected from disabled users about physical product features
causing significant barriers to access, and from equipment supplier
representatives as to commercial imperatives for the standard. A combined
analysis of these data sets would then enable the author to create a first draft of
43
the content of the standard. With these two stakeholder groups representing
potentially conflicting ends of the equipment supply and demand continuum, the
health and fitness professionals group would subsequently be best-placed to
mediate and guide the standard’s technical content until consensus across all
consulted parties was achieved. After allowing a suitable implementation period,
the effectiveness of the standard and its impact on product design would then
be explored with representatives from the equipment supplier stakeholder group.
Health & Fitness Professionals
' Inclusive^ Fitness
Equipment V Design J / Fitness
Equipment Suppliers/
DisabledPeople
EquipmentSupply
EquipmentDemand
Figure 3.2: Major stakeholder groups considered influential in the design
of inclusive fitness equipment
3.4.1 Research Methods
Different research methods were adopted for each stakeholder group, with
particular research motives or analytic interests guiding the selection of one
methodological approach over another. Empirical methods were favoured with
the disabled user stakeholder group to gain raw data on practical product issues,
44
whilst ethnographic and observational methods were applied to elicit more
intangible organisational knowledge on design exclusion from the fitness
equipment supplier group. In essence, the use of multiple research strategies
allowed analysis of the same problem from independent viewpoints, to yield a
more complete view and in-depth understanding of the inclusive design of
mainstream commercial fitness equipment. With this topic in its infancy, the
work is exploratory in nature and thus necessarily draws predominantly on
inductive and qualitative research methodologies. It is the research in inductive
methodologies which gives rise to the theory, hence in this study trends and
determinants from disabled user and equipment supplier data were identified,
from which a set of recommendations concerning inclusive fitness equipment
design could be generated. Due to the relatively small but focused population
samples involved, a qualitative, rather than quantitative, approach was selected
to enable a more thorough understanding of the area in question and also to
better capture the complexity and dynamism of the setting (Short, 2001). Cross-
sectional studies were used to depict the state of the industry at given points in
time, whilst longitudinal studies monitored research elements, such as attitudes
and opinions, that were expected to change in nature during the course of the
research.
For clarity, individual stakeholder studies are presented separately in
succeeding thesis chapters. Each chapter provides detailed descriptions of the
procedures employed to elicit information from the group under investigation
and provides results and discussion on the pertinent issues revealed. However,
a brief outline of the specific research methods utilised at each stage is
provided below, along with a critique of their merits and justification for use in
particular studies.
45
3.4.2 Stakeholder Studies
(a) Disabled Users
Practical product testing by 122 disabled users was employed to identify
specific barriers to equipment usage. Raw data was drawn from a series of
cross-sectional studies utilising a simulated gym environment. A total of 209
products were examined, each nominated by individual suppliers as being those
that they considered to be most accessible at that time. A sizeable sample of
disabled people, selected using combined stratified and purposive sampling
methods, was employed to draw conclusions and recommendations on
inclusive fitness equipment design relevant to the wider population. Users were
recruited, as far as practically possible, from those who should be able to use
the products but were currently expected to experience difficulties. BSI (2005a)
advocates that most relevant accessibility issues can be discovered using this
approach with a comparatively small set of users. Questionnaires were
employed to capture quantitative scoring data on predetermined usability
criteria, along with supporting qualitative comments from individuals with a
range of physical, sensory and cognitive impairments as well as non-disabled
people. Averaging of scoring data was used to suggest the products and
usability criteria that were particularly problematic for users, in order to focus on
priority areas where design changes needed to be made and to guide resources
and essential topics to be addressed by the standard. Qualitative feedback was
coded and a structured content analysis performed to identify major trends and
to reveal the existing physical features which make equipment inaccessible
from a user perspective. The author was then able to use the collective user
findings from each cross-sectional study to generate a list of the foremost
sources of design exclusion. The content of the first draft of the inclusive design
standard was subsequently formed from this list. Details of this study are given
in Chapter Four.
46
(b) Fitness Equipment Suppliers
A series of focus group consultations with both design staff and non-design
related organisational representatives from mainstream fitness equipment
suppliers were employed to explore design exclusion and standardisation from
a commercial perspective. To encourage broad industry representation, supplier
participation was elicited through an open invitation at trade events and industry
press, alongside direct targeting of major manufacturers to secure their
involvement. Drawing primarily upon qualitative data, a content analysis of
meeting minutes and observational analysis on the part of the author,
perspectives on the viability of an industry-specific inclusive design standard
were established, alongside common attitudes and barriers to the adoption of
more inclusive design practices. Due to the longitudinal nature of the study, it
was possible to monitor developments in these areas and in awareness of the
benefits of inclusive design. In addition to the provision of organisational
information, specific technical contributions to the standard were sought from
these industrial partners and the final content negotiated to ensure its
commercial relevance and efficacy. Details of this study are given in Chapter
Five.
(c) Health and Fitness Professionals
Through a collective analysis, the author was able to assimilate the findings
from the disabled user and fitness equipment supplier studies, in order to
generate the initial content of the standard. Using a 7-phase approach
analogous to the BSI standards development process (BSI, 2005c), as
explained in Chapter Six, subsequent revisions were then guided through
industry-based participatory action research with key consultants and experts
from the health and fitness professionals stakeholder group. The committee
included representatives from the fields of fitness equipment design; design
legislation and safety standardisation; fitness instruction; inclusive sports
equipment design (outdoor adventure) and disability equity. Also included were
a user representative and an elected supplier representative drawn from
individuals participating in the earlier disabled user and equipment supplier
47
studies, alongside an IFI Programme representative. A purposive sampling
approach was used to recruit experts considered able to provide significant data
on the research subject (Oliver, 2008).
Successive drafts of the standard were submitted for consideration at
committee meetings, after which comments were analysed and the document
amended to reflect any agreed changes. The script was resubmitted to
subsequent meetings for approval, until a consensus on the technical content
was achieved. This procedure meant that expertise from the health and fitness
professionals’ stakeholder group could act as a filter to the technical content of
the standard in order to offer arbitration between conflicting stakeholder
requirements and to ensure that only reasonable product adjustments were
recommended. Details of this study are given in Chapter Six.
(d) Effectiveness of the Standard
After allowing a suitable implementation period, industry responses to the
standard and its use were investigated. Firstly, qualitative case study data, from
a selection of products submitted by fitness equipment suppliers and assessed
by the author as being fully compliant with the standard, was gathered to
evidence changes in current design practices. ‘Before’ and ‘after’ examples of
product features were compared to show inclusive developments. Secondly, a
content analysis was performed on qualitative survey data collected from fitness
equipment supplier design staff. Reponses were sought from organisations
involved in the earlier focus group studies, and those known to have
implemented the design recommendations contained within the standard. This
feedback was examined in order to identify trends and provide judgements on
the effectiveness of the standard in supporting more inclusive design practices
within the fitness industry. Details of this study are given in Chapter Seven.
48
3.5 Conclusion
Standards are intended to impact on product design, therefore providing
justification for their use as a medium to disseminate inclusive design data. In
order to draw on expertise and encourage active participation, it was necessary
to involve multiple stakeholder groups, resulting in the implementation of six
guiding principles to govern the development of the inclusive design standard.
The mainly qualitative and inductive research methods used with each
stakeholder group defined how the study’s objectives would be met and the
process by which the content for the standard would be established. This
chapter has offered an overview of the methodology and methods involved and
subsequent chapters now offer more detailed discussions of each element.
49
Chapter Four: User Identification of Existing Design Exclusion
4.1 Introduction
The literature appraisal presented in Chapter Two suggests that existing fitness
equipment is often inadequate in meeting the needs of a wide range of disabled
people. Whilst highlighting an inequality in provision, the literature is unable to
provide a sufficiently detailed technical specification, across both a broad
spectrum of equipment and different impairment types, to successfully assist
product designers to remedy the situation. This chapter therefore describes the
inductive research process implemented to collect comprehensive and reliable
data from disabled users concerning inaccessible fitness equipment, in order to
more adequately inform equipment supplier design staff. The work presented in
this chapter aims to fulfil research objective (2), through the practical testing of
fitness equipment by a sample of disabled users to identify inaccessible product
features and the foremost sources of design exclusion. Warranting a data
collection methodology that would allow formal codification of tacit knowledge
from disabled users, empirical product testing was selected to identify barriers
to equipment usage. A sizeable sample of 122 disabled individuals was used to
collect data, draw conclusions and make recommendations on inclusive fitness
equipment design relevant to the wider population of disabled people. The data
set consists of feedback, collected via questionnaire, from a series of five cross
sectional studies spanning a two and a half year time frame.
4.2 Capturing User Needs - Data Collection
The test protocol for each practical session, run under the auspices of the IFI, is
explained below.
50
4.2.1 Test Environment
Two large, accessible sports halls, situated to give both a geographical spread
and also access to different tester populations, were chosen for the testing
venues. The initial two sessions were held at Aldersley Leisure Village,
Wolverhampton and the remaining three sessions at the English Institute for
Sport, Sheffield. To illustrate the set-up of the venues, photographs from the
latter are shown in Figure 4.1. Key issues for consideration when selecting
these venues were; physical accessibility, supplier logistics and the health and
safety of all participants, which dictated the use of a simulated gym environment
to host the test sessions. Inviting a wide range of differently impaired users to
participate in the test sessions made venue accessibility of paramount concern.
Within the venue architectural, navigational and emergency evacuation issues
were considered to ensure a large sample of users could interact safely and
unhindered with the products under test. External influences, such as adequacy
of transportation links, accessible parking and availability of appropriate
changing facilities, were also taken into account. Geographical and access
issues were also considered for delivery and set up of equipment, with loading
bays made available for clear entry and egress of equipment by multiple
suppliers to the testing locations. The large available floor space facilitated the
temporary set up and removal of 30 to 40 individual products per test session,
permitting a considerable number and range of items to be used.
51
Figure 4.1: Simulated gym environment for practical product testing at the
English Institute for Sport, Sheffield
52
4.2.2 Profile of Equipment Tested
Testing was performed on 209 separate pieces of fitness equipment, supplied in
total by 33 different manufacturers (see Appendix B for full list of equipment
suppliers). All products were either commercially available, or prototypes
intended for development into commercial products, ensuring any data collected
was relevant and up-to-date. To ensure a broad variety of equipment types,
selection of equipment was made through consultation with numerous fitness
equipment supplier organisations operating in the UK marketplace, who were
invited to submit products they considered had features suitable for inclusive
use (see Appendix C). For testing purposes the remit of what constituted
‘fitness equipment’ was defined in accordance with the safety standard for these
product types, BS EN 957-1:
“Equipment that is not moved as a unit during use, and which either
stands on the floor or is attached to a wall, ceiling or other fixed
structure. Training equipment can be used for the following:
(a) physical culture, body building or body styling;
(b) health fitness training;
(c) physical education; and
(d) training specific to competition and related sports activities. ”
(BSI, 1997a, pg 3)
Each product was assigned a ‘generic product type’ classification from the
following list, which mirrors the delineations and definitions contained within the
relevant Parts of the BS EN 957 safety standard (BSI, 1997a). Allocation of a
product into a particular subcategory was based on equipment name, previous
knowledge of similar products, pictorial or descriptive information available in
relevant sales literature or through direct consultation with supplier
representatives.
53
Generic product type categories:
• Treadmill
• Upright cycle
• Recumbent cycle
• Upper body ergometer
• Stepper
• Elliptical trainer
• Rowing machine
• Upper body resistance
• Lower body resistance
• Multistation
• Miscellaneous
• Access aid
A cross section of generic product types was represented over the 5 practical
test sessions, with a total of 30 to 45 items under investigation at each event.
Table 4.1 shows a breakdown of the 209 products tested in total by generic
product type, highlighting the diversity of items studied. The equipment types
with higher numbers tested represent the broadest categories which
encompassed the greatest range of products. The complete data set includes
upper, lower and total body exercise options for both cardiovascular and
strength training. This product profile offered a full body workout for the majority
of users, which would consequently be reflected in the scope of the resulting
inclusive design standard.
All products were delivered and set up at the testing venues by supplier
representatives. Personnel from each supplier organisation accompanied
products during testing to comply with product liability insurance requirements
and to provide practical demonstrations to testers where necessary. Supplier
representatives were briefed to act in a supervisory capacity only, unless
instructing on safe exercise procedures, to ensure that testers were able to use
and consider the equipment unhindered.
54
Table 4.1: Products tested by generic product type
Generic Product Type NumberTested
Treadmill 21Lower Body Resistance 38Upper Body Resistance 58Multi-Station 26Upright cycle 12Recumbent cycle 15Elliptical Trainer 7Access Aids 8Stepper 4Miscellaneous 10Rowing machine 3Upper Body Ergometer 7 !
Total 209
4.2.3 Profile of Tester Population
The overall data set compiles opinions from 122 individual volunteer testers.
Tester recruitment was carried out in conjunction with the IFI, in order to utilise
their extensive network of contacts, and took a targeted pan-disability approach,
using self-declaration of impairment(s), with a clear focus on disability as
opposed to aging. Individuals declared their impairment(s) by selecting the
appropriate option(s) from the short predefined list shown in Figure 4.2, which
was originally set out by the IFI in order to monitor facility usage by disabled
people. A stratified sampling method was employed by the author in order to
ensure consideration of a cross section of different impairment types. This
broadly representative, albeit non-statistical, sample of the disabled population
was chosen with the assistance of IFI personnel using purposive and
convenience approaches, to give a test group who were able to provide relevant
data and who would be able to attend sessions as needed. Contact was made
through local disability groups and publicised via word of mouth to recruit
testers from the general public. Testers identifying as non-disabled were also in
attendance during all test sessions to ensure feedback would reflect an
inclusive approach. As the foundation of the design standard, tester feedback
55
would therefore ensure transposition into a standard to support inclusive design,
rather than just design for disability.
Please indicate in the box any impairment that you have:
Amputee - Lower limb □ Multiple Sclerosis □
Amputee - Upper limb □ None □
Cerebral Palsy □ Paraplegic □
Dwarfism □ Stroke □
Hearing Impaired / Deaf □ Visually Impaired / Blind □
Learning Disability □ Other (please state): □
Mental Health □
Figure 4.2: Tester self-disclosure list of impairment(s)
Figure 4.3 shows a breakdown of the total number of testers by impairment
classification, demonstrating coverage of the major functional divisions of
physical (43%), sensory (16%) and cognitive (22%) impairments. Testers
identifying with two or more categories from the predefined impairment list were
designated under a ‘multiple impairment’ category (7%). It is noted that whilst
the majority of testers identified with a single condition, many of these will also
display associated secondary impairments, for example multiple sclerosis
causing reduced vision, or learning disability being associated with reduced
range of movement and co-ordination in some instances. It is likely that these
testers were able to give feedback across the different impairment categories.
Those with conditions manifesting high-risk scenarios, for example acute
coronary heart disease, were not included as individuals displaying such
symptoms would need to be under direct medical and rehabilitative supervision.
Although not formally recorded, congenital and acquired disabilities were
represented alongside a continuum of impairment severities. An age range of
1 6 - 8 6 years was covered with 59% male and 41% female testers.
56
Experienced and non-gym users were recruited to ensure a variety of previous
expertise of the gym environment and fitness equipment usage.
Dwarfism1%
Non-disabled 12%
Hearing Impairment9%
Visual Impairment 7%
Mental Health 5%
Learning Disability 17%
Multiple7%
Stroke6%
Lower Limb Impairment
2%
Upper Limb Impairment
2%Cerebral Palsy
11%
Tetraplegic4%
Multiple Sclerosis 9%
Parapelgic7%
Spina Bifida 1%
j Physical impairment | Cognitive impairment □ Non-disabled
H Sensory impairment H Multiple impairment
Figure 4.3: Total number of testers by impairment classification
At each of the 5 practical testing sessions, there were 30 - 40 testers present to
facilitate data collection from multiple users on all products. With each tester
having attended 0 - 4 of the previous sessions, this also provided for a range of
novice and experienced attendees. Every test session commenced with a
briefing for testers, personal assistants/carers and buddies, which clearly
disclosed the purpose of the study and the organisation that commissioned it.
Detailed requirements and expectations for the day were discussed and testers
were assured of their rights to confidentiality and anonymity during data
collection, analysis and subsequent dissemination of findings. All participants
gave their written informed consent to be involved in the study.
57
4.2.4 Questionnaire Design
Data was collected through a questionnaire developed from that originally
proposed to the IFI by Suresh Paul and Spencer Holmes, experts in inclusive
design and inclusive fitness instruction respectively and subsequent members
of the equipment expert panel discussed in Chapter Six. These authors utilised
practitioner-based observations and inductive reasoning to create the
foundation for their original questionnaire, identifying a model with seven
usability criteria to form the basis of their survey questions. The criteria
identified were: ease of access into/onto equipment, ease of access out of/off
equipment, adjustability, range of movement, range of resistance, ease of
use/programming and comfort. To elicit a quantitative data set, a six point (0-5)
scoring scale was applied where ‘0’ represents user dissatisfaction through to
‘5’ which represents a high level of user satisfaction. Open-ended qualitative
feedback was also gathered to clarify user satisfaction scores measured
through the closed questioning of the quantitative data. The resulting tester
scoring sheet is shown in Figure 4.4. Prior to testing all users were given an
additional sheet which explained the terms used and defined each 0-5 point
scoring criteria (see Appendix D).
CATEGORY SCOREEase of access into / onto 0 2 3 4 5
Ease of access out of / off from 0 2 3 4 5
Range of movement
Range of resistance
Adjustability
Comfort 0
0
0
0
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
Ease of use / programming 0 2 3 4 5
Other Specific Comments
Figure 4.4: User feedback questionnaire (original version)
58
As a direct result of data analysis from the first two test sessions the
questionnaire was developed further by the current author. Space for open-
ended comments was allocated after every question to encourage more
qualitative feedback and to offer increased scope for users to answer more fully.
This change also facilitated direct association of any issues with the specific
criterion concerned. The development of a separate questionnaire for each
generic product type, alongside simple prompts concerning relevant product
components further enhanced data collection. An example of a complete
product-specific questionnaire is shown in Figure 4.5 for the treadmill category.
The decision was taken to encourage tester feedback more directly towards
product-specific features to ensure that an increased number of components
were considered, thus giving the data required to provide a more
comprehensive inclusive design standard. Ensuring that the questionnaire
tested the product features and not the capabilities of individual testers had
important implications for question wording, for example ‘how easy to start
exercising’ was used rather than ‘can you start exercising’ as shown in the ease
of programming question in Figure 4.5. To increase the accessibility of the data
collection medium, ‘smiley face’ pictograms were added to represent the
satisfaction continuum alongside the numeric scale. Mencap (2000) suggest
that this technique may be particularly beneficial for those with cognitive or
learning impairments, or those who naturally relate more easily to visual
information. A further amendment was the addition of a ‘not applicable’ option to
the quantitative scale. These changes were verified through trial runs with 9
testers prior to the main testing sessions.
Questionnaires were self-administered during each test session, allowing a
large sample size cross-sectional study to be achieved. Testers completed a
separate questionnaire for each piece of equipment tested. Score sheets and
feedback mechanisms were adapted where necessary to ensure users’ views
were recorded regardless of impairment, for example questionnaires were
provided in large print and sign language interpreters, scribes and buddies were
available to assist with completion of documentation. Testers were encouraged
to spend as much time with each product as they deemed necessary to become
familiar with its usage and to complete their evaluation questionnaire to their
59
own personal satisfaction. Figure 4.6 shows a compilation of images taken
during the test sessions, showing a cross-section of testers completing the
practical testing and questionnaire feedback, and examples of completed
questionnaires are given in Appendix D.
• n *T
Inclusive Fitness Initiative Treadmills
10
Tester Number
Equipment Piece Number
Please score the following according to the scoring criteria:
CATEGORY SCORE
Ease of access on / off N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5© 0 © © © ©
Ease of programming N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 © © © © © ©(e.g. how easy to start exercising, how easy to know how farthrough the program you are, how easy to change speed, sizeof writing on console, colours used, tactile information)
Turn over page
Figure 4.5: User feedback questionnaire
(product-specific version - Treadmills) Page 1
(Figure continued overleaf)
60
Range of speed N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5© © © © © ©
(e.g. minimum / starting speed, increments in speed)
Use of emergency stop N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5© © © © © ©
(e.g. position of emergency stop button, ease of use)
General comfort N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. position and size of handles, smoothness of machine)
Other comments, problems or suggestions
Figure 4.5 (cont.): User feedback questionnaire
(product-specific version - Treadmills) Page 2
61
INCLUSIVE FITNESS W INITIATIVE
Figure 4.6: Testers performing practical tests of equipment
(Figure continued overleaf)
62
■ ■ mtm
Figure 4.6 (cont.): Testers performing practical tests of equipment
63
4.3 Quantitative Data Analysis
Subsequent to completion of the five practical testing sessions by disabled
users, the quantitative data was collated from the questionnaire responses to
enable data analysis and identification of relevant findings in order to inform the
development of the inclusive design standard.
4.3.1 Data Analysis Methods
Tester quantitative scores (0-5) for each of the seven usability criteria were
recorded on an aggregated spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel) post-event for all
equipment items tested. Data was grouped according to the generic product
type category previously assigned. Within each generic product type, tester
data was grouped by self-declared impairment to allow easier identification and
comparison of impairment-specific trends. All further analysis was performed
within the generic product type classifications, ensuring generation of design
knowledge which would translate more easily into a product-specific inclusive
design standard.
Initial consideration was focused towards identifying an overall level of design
exclusion for each generic product type. Consideration of relative levels of
exclusion would highlight any particularly problematic products, consequently
indicating those requiring the most immediate inclusive design attention.
Average tester scores were calculated for each individual piece of equipment
tested. An average of these individual equipment scores was then taken across
each generic product type, to give an overall average score.
With an outline of the most and least accessible generic product types
established, enquiry turned towards identifying variability within scoring for each
of the seven defined usability criteria. This endeavour aimed to analyse and
compare the broad functional areas of product usage covered by the usability
criteria. Assessing those areas which offered significant, or indeed insignificant,
barriers to access would again guide the content and focus of the inclusive
design standard. Average tester scores were calculated for the seven usability
criteria for each individual piece of equipment tested. An average of these
64
usability scores was then taken across each generic product type, to obtain
overall average scores for each of the seven usability criteria on a generic
product type basis.
4.3.2 Results
The rank ordered overall average scores, for each generic product type, are
presented in Figure 4.7 to identify relative levels of user satisfaction, and by
inference design exclusion. High numeric scores indicate high user satisfaction
and therefore represent the most accessible generic product types, according to
the tester feedback provided. Conversely, low numeric scores suggest the
presence of design exclusion, and hence decreasing accessibility of product
types is apparent moving from top to bottom in Figure 4.7.
0)Q.>iI-O3TJOi_Q.Ou0)Ca>O
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Overall Average Score
Figure 4.7: Kank ordered overall average score data indicating most to
least accessible generic product types
The overall average scores for each usability criteria, across all generic product
types, are presented graphically in Figures 4.8 to 4.11. As in Figure 4.7, high
numeric scores correlate with higher levels of user satisfaction and decreased
design exclusion. Accessibility, by usability criteria, is therefore maximised
towards the upper limit of each of the vertical scales in Figures 4.8 to 4.11.
Multi Station
Upper Body Ergometer
Upper Body Resistance
Row ing Machine
>* c O |? ^ a> 5
Treadmill
Elliptical Trainer
Mscellaneous
Recumbent Cycle
Upright Cycle
Stepper
Lower Body Resistance
> ~ o |M| a-o � j
65
ooCO03O)TO®><2<1)<3
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5Co X £
W13 oa5 a5c
03j S 03
E
d o
Generic Product TypeEase of access into/onto
■ Ease of access off from
Figure 4.8: Overall average scores for access and egress usability criteria
4.50)L-oo
CO0303re03><
3.5reu-03>O
2.5co >> i_
■R 03</33 c
03X I 03
03 .52 Q . CO Q . 03Z) or
d O
Ease of access into/onto Ease of access off from
Generic Product Type
Range of movementRange of resistance
Figure 4.9: Overall average scores for range of movement and range of
resistance usability criteria
66
4.5£oo<0
a)><3.5
<D>o
2.5co _a>
ow3a3
Q . a>3 cr
Ease of access into/onto Ease of access off from
Generic Product TypeRange of movement Range of resistance
Comfort
Figure 4.10: Overall average scores for comfort usability criteria
4.5a>k .oo
COa)o>TOa>><
3.5a)>O
2.5_QJO
co w3 >> a; ■R Oa3a3 c(DQ . Wc l a) D Q:
Ease of access into/onto Ease of access off from
Generic Product Type
Range of movement Range of resistance
•AdjustabilityComfort
■ Ease of use/programming
Figure 4.11: Overall average scores for adjustability and ease of programming usability criteria
67
4.3.3 Discussion of Findings
Rank ordering the overall average scores across all generic product types, as in
Figure 4.7, allowed a comparative analysis of user satisfaction with current
equipment design. The observed trend was for upper body equipment to score
more highly, and hence be considered generally more accessible, than lower
body equipment. This result replicated findings from the literature review in
Chapter Two, which suggested that an over concentration on lower limb
exercise, notably in cardiovascular equipment, was problematic for many
disabled users (Ward et al., 2001). One factor likely to be influencing this
phenomenon is the relatively high prevalence of mobility impairments within the
disabled population, meaning that those with reduced leg function are
immediately excluded from much current mainstream equipment. The
importance of these results was reflected in the considerations for the
development of the inclusive design standard:
• to ensure that a wide product range was addressed within the standard
in order to provide equipment choices appropriate for users with a range
of functional abilities
• to increase accessibility of lower body products was of paramount
concern
• to ensure that accessibility requirements for upper body products were
not neglected as they may offer the only viable exercise options for users
without lower limb function.
Together with the varying accessibility across generic product types, apparent
in Figure 4.7, it is clear from Figures 4.8 to 4.11 that there is also variability in
the usability criteria scores within each product type. The deduction was made
from this non-uniform scoring distribution that unique aspects of design are
problematic for different product types. This corroborated the need to adopt a
research approach which considered user feedback with respect to different
product types and did not treat the data set merely as a single collective whole.
68
Graphical representation of the overall average scores demonstrates noticeable
trends when comparing individual usability criteria across generic product types.
Figure 4.8 directly compares the usability criteria of equipment access and
egress. These criteria display comparable results, which is unsurprising since
they represent somewhat analogous physical actions in terms of equipment
usage, placing similar functional and cognitive demands on the user. Also
demonstrating comparable trends are the usability criteria of range of
movement and range of resistance, as presented in Figure 4.9. Uncertainty on
the part of testers concerning the subtle differences between these category
definitions, particularly identification of which specific equipment components
were ascribed to each criterion, may account for some of the similarities
apparent in these results. Figure 4.10 graphs the criteria of comfort, arguably
the most subjective usability criterion assessed. Testers had a propensity to
notice only extremes within this criterion i.e. very comfortable or very
uncomfortable, and hence the trend line sits average amongst the other
usability criteria assessed. Of particular interest however, are the criteria of
adjustability and ease of use/programming, which are depicted in Figure 4.11.
Whilst illustrating comparable trends to each other, both also score poorly and
sit well below the other criteria investigated, indicating that these are the least
accessible criteria across most current fitness equipment design. The criterion
of adjustability can perhaps be most closely associated with resistance
equipment usage, whilst ease of use/programming relates more directly to
cardiovascular products. The results shown in Figure 4.11 reflect this
assessment, showing that ease of adjustability scores were lowest for upper
body, lower body and multistation resistance equipment, whilst ease of
use/programming received the lowest score for six out of seven of the
remaining cardiovascular products. Both criteria represent the act of product
set-up and configuration, which is fundamental to the successful, effective and
safe use of any fitness equipment. The general trends observed for these
criteria suggest a widespread and recurring problem in these aspects of design.
Improvements in these specific areas therefore offered the greatest potential for
increasing product accessibility, and were used as a focus for the requirements
set out in the inclusive design standard. The specific high to low ordering of
usability scores within each generic product type additionally indicated the most
69
significant sources of design exclusion within each equipment category, and
guided the prioritisation of those areas requiring most inclusive design attention.
Overall these findings were important for the development of the inclusive
design standard as they reinforced the principle that distinctive and unique
issues affect differing product types, thus signifying the need for a product-
specific design standard. The identification of adjustability and ease of
use/programming as significant issues affecting the accessibility of all product
types was also particularly informative in focusing the exact requirements and
scope of the final standards documentation.
4.4 Qualitative Data Analysis
Subsequent to completion of the five practical testing sessions by disabled
users, the qualitative data was collated from the questionnaire responses to
enable data analysis and identification of relevant findings in order to inform the
development of the inclusive design standard.
4.4.1 Data Analysis Methods
Qualitative comments were tabulated post-event in a Microsoft Word document
which collated data for all equipment items from all testers. Text was input
verbatim, with only an extremely small quantity of data lost through
indecipherable handwriting. Individual comments were tagged with the
impairment category of the tester responsible for that specific feedback. Data
was grouped according to the generic product type previously assigned, for
further examination through a structured content analysis. Data analysis
focused on a search for consistencies to identify critical and recurring issues
common across a number of testers. These areas, which identified barriers to
equipment use or examples of good practice, were subsequently used to form
the base manuscript for the inclusive design standard.
70
Data was analysed using the process of qualitative categorisation, as described
by Strauss and Corbin (1990). This technique involved a line-by-line analysis to
assign a code to each qualitative statement of data. Unique codes were created
for each of the seven defined usability criteria and additional codes and code
descriptions formulated as required. Incomplete or ambiguous statements were
coded as unusable data. Consecutive phrases were compared to determine
whether they should be classified separately or whether they belonged to an
existing code (Wolcott, 2001). Code allocation was a subjective exercise based
on the author’s opinion and interpretation of the meaning of the data, along with
a detailed working knowledge of fitness equipment features.
The fully coded data set was sorted by code within each generic product type.
Highlen and Finley (1996) describe this process of grouping responses into
broad categories and then organising them into subcategories as a standard
method for isolating emerging thematic statements. An additional advantage of
considering the data contained within each generic product type, was elicitation
of product-specific knowledge which would translate more easily into the
inclusive design standard. To synthesise the tester comments into these
specific meaningful themes, a content analysis was conducted on each coded
generic product type data set. This inductive process judged each comment as
either supporting or refuting an emerging theme or pattern. Those themes
attracting multiple and recurring comments were noted and collated for each
generic product type. Individual comments which did not extend throughout the
data set but were deemed as revealing significant health and safety risks were
also recorded.
4.4.2 Results
The following raw data illustrates typical tester feedback, with examples
selected from a range of different generic product types and tester impairment
categories:
“Seat high - adjustment required”
(Equipment - Leg Extension: Impairment - Cerebral Palsy)
71
“With a battery wheelchair, the wheelchair prevented me getting far
enough back”
(Equipment - Pec Deck: Impairment - Muscular Dystrophy)
“Hip-knee length too long for my short legs so back rest needs to be able to be
adjusted further forward”
(Equipment - Leg Extension: Impairment - Visual Impairment)
“All the adjustments are right hand and I found difficult to operate”
(Equipment - Leg Curl: Impairment - Upper Limb Impairment)
“Adjusting knobs a little confusing as they look as if you should twist them when
they are actually a pull lever”
(Equipment - Leg Extension: Impairment - Deaf/Blind)
W rap it up. I ’ll take it home!”
(Equipment - Lower Back Extension: Impairment - Blind)
“Electrics confusing”
(Equipment - Elliptical Trainer: Impairment - Multiple Sclerosis)
“Due to size of fonts it is difficult to access programmes”
(Equipment - Treadmill: Impairment - Visual Impairment)
“Need flash to let me know time is up because it has sound and I
cannot hear it”
(Equipment - Upper Body Ergometer: Impairment - Hearing Impairment)
“Machine kept cutting out on weak leg not registering”
(Equipment - Recumbent Cycle: Impairment - Multiple Sclerosis)
“Seat didn’t adjust low enough for me to get on and off easily”
(Equipment - Upright Cycle: Impairment - Non-disabled)
“Too big I could not reach the handle”
(Equipment - Elliptical Trainer: Impairment - Learning Disability)
72
As a consequence of the coding and thematic analysis procedure, the major
themes extracted from the raw data were collated for each generic product type.
A complete summary of the foremost themes evidenced by the testers,
presented by generic product type, is provided in Appendix E. An extract of this
information is replicated below in Table 4.2 for upper body resistance
equipment and in Table 4.3 for recumbent cycles as an exemplar of findings.
These unfiltered data sets represented the first draft of the inclusive design
standard’s content.
Table 4.2: Results of qualitative thematic analysis - main findings for
upper body resistance equipment
Topic Specific ThemeAccess and Transferring Equipment unusable if unable to transfer/remove seat
Difficulty removing seatLack of handles to assist transfer
Adjustment Mechanisms Adjustments too heavy to useStiff adjustmentsPoorly positioned or difficult to reachFiddly, awkward or hard to grip
Positioning for Exercise Handgrip positions need redesigningHandgrips need to be more adjustableDifficulty reaching high handles - can't use grab handle at higher weights, assistance requiredDifficult to achieve correct exercising position with wheelchair access (arms too far back, excessive stress placed on shoulder joint)
Range of Resistance Weights too heavyIncrements too largeUse of half weights desirable
Seating and Stability Sliding off seat when pushingSeat too smallSeat too hard/uncomfortableFeel unstable/unsafe when exercising due to lack of trunk support (open sided machines)Need for seatbelt and/or back support
Asymmetry Difficult to use unilaterally - grip particularly difficultUnequal strength
Sensory Information Need for tactile information - especially on weight stackBetter use of colour contrast requiredUtilisation of colour coding (specifically on pads, handles, seats, adjustments, weight pins, frame, and upholstery)
Instructional Advice Poor instructions providedInstructions absent or incompletePoorly positionedUse of diagrams requiredInappropriate vocabulary
73
Table 4.3: Results of qualitative thematic analysis - main findings forrecumbent cycles
Topic Specific ThemeAccess and Transferring Step over too high, good range of movement neededAdjustment Mechanisms Getting feet into pedals and foot straps difficult
Fastening/adjusting pedals and foot straps problematicSeat adjustment hidden or difficult to findSeat adjustment hard, difficult or fiddly to use
Positioning for Exercise Foot unintentionally contacting with central section of frame or falling out of pedals (heel strap required)
Sensory Information Pedals and foot straps need better colour contrastInstructional Advice Complicated equipment - instruction or assistance required
Console is complex/too much informationConsole text too smallBetter colour contrast required on console informationNo audio feedback providedTactile information required
4.4.3 Discussion of Findings
The amalgamation of all results from the qualitative thematic analysis into a
single document, whilst retaining the product-specific nature of the information,
provided a first draft of the inclusive design standard. Consideration of this
complete data set was able to highlight consistent and also unique trends
across all generic product types. The most commonly recurring themes could
be categorised under the following broad headings:
• Need for clear and easy access onto equipment
• Adjustment mechanisms currently difficult to use
• Unsuitable resistance increments and ranges of movement
• Overly complex programming
• Lack of multi-sensory information on user-product interfaces.
The dominant themes identified above support results from the quantitative data
analysis, as described in section 4.3, where adjustability and ease of
use/programming criteria scored poorly compared with other areas. Additionally,
these findings further support the content of the literature review presented in
Chapter Two. Many of the specific barriers to access reported by other authors
74
were explicitly noted by the current tester group and can also be categorised
under the broad headings defined above. Identification of these key themes was
intended to ensure that they were an explicit priority within the development of
the standard.
With an initial outline of the inclusive design standard’s content now established
within a single document, this provided a tangible and central resource from
which the full standard could be developed. This detailed manuscript was
utilised to instigate discussions with other stakeholders involved in the
equipment design process to ensure the practicality of any written standard. For
each generic product type, the script comprehensively identified specific areas
of design exclusion alongside those features providing good accessibility from
the perspective of a wide range of disabled testers. Specifically, the document
was able to highlight the key areas for discussion with commercial equipment
supplier representatives, as described in Chapter Five, and also representatives
from the health and fitness professionals stakeholder group, as described in
Chapter Six.
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter has described the test protocol, data analysis and findings
resulting from a series of practical testing sessions carried out to elicit
information on the accessibility of existing fitness products. A sizeable sample
of disabled individuals was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data via
questionnaire, draw conclusions and make recommendations on inclusive
fitness equipment design relevant to the wider population of disabled people.
With existing literature unable to provide sufficient technical detail for fitness
equipment supplier design staff, the aim of the study was to fulfil research
objective (2 ) and assimilate comprehensive and reliable data concerning design
exclusion over a wide range of impairment and product types.
Analysis of the quantitative data set revealed that although upper body
equipment was considered generally more accessible than lower body
75
equipment, low scores were seen across all generic product types. The
implication of this finding was to indicate that the inclusive design standard
should provide for a wide range of products rather than focussing on a single
item. Quantitative data analysis additionally identified adjustability and ease of
use/programming criteria as being particularly problematic for many disabled
users, leading to these key areas being considered as a priority throughout the
standard’s development process. This outcome was reinforced by the results of
coding and thematic analysis of the qualitative data set, which also led to the
first unfiltered draft of content for the inclusive design standard. Representing
entirely new knowledge for the fitness equipment industry, it was consequently
necessary to consult with representatives from both the equipment supplier and
health and fitness professionals stakeholder groups in order to further develop
this initial draft and gain a wider consensus on the final content of the standard.
76
Chapter Five: Industrial Consultation on an Inclusive Design Standard
5.1 Introduction
User perspectives have been considered in Chapter Four, with the findings
leading to the creation of an initial manuscript for the inclusive design standard.
The research was now extended to other stakeholders, to ensure that the final
inclusive design standard was written to meet the requirements of the
equipment supplier design staff who would eventually be tasked with its
implementation. Keates et al. (2000) conclude that in order to offer successful
guidance concerning designing for a wider population, it is necessary to
understand not only the requirements of the users of products, but also the
users of design information. The present chapter hence addresses research
objective (3) by examining barriers, opportunities and imperatives for the
development of an inclusive design standard with a sample of fitness equipment
supplier representatives, to identify their specific needs in realising a new
design standard within the supply chain. These issues are explored through a
series of focus group sessions attended predominantly by equipment supplier
design staff, but also including some non-design related organisational
representatives, from which conclusions are drawn to guide the content of the
standard.
Over the consultation period, it was noted that the role of the various equipment
supplier representatives evolved from one of generic discussion and advice to
one of providing specific feedback on the content of the standard. The current
chapter focuses on the former information, examining firstly the state of
readiness of the industry to accept and respond to an inclusive design standard,
and secondly the industrial context within which the implementation of the
standard will occur. Explicit technical contributions to the standard, although
gathered in part during focus group sessions, are described separately in
Chapter Six for reasons of clarity.
77
5.2 Consultation Objectives
The worth and effectiveness of any standard will be maximised if is written in
response to the needs of those who will use it (BSI, undated b). Ward (2005)
believes industrial design teams are a remarkable asset to reshaping the future
of fitness, and this is undeniably true within the context of the development of
an inclusive design standard for their industry. Correspondingly, professional
fitness equipment designers and senior managers responsible for
commissioning design from within their organisations, were consulted to capture
their experience, requirements and aspirations for the standard and its
development process. Specific technical contributions to the standard were
sought together with insights concerning individual, professional or
organisational barriers to adoption. Findings would inform not only the
standard’s content but additionally the processes by which it would be
disseminated and implemented within the industry.
In summary the consultation objectives were to:
• Explore the critical reasons which have led to the current situation of
inaccessible equipment being widespread in the marketplace.
• Explore the specific perceptible and intangible barriers to adoption of
inclusive design principles within the current fitness equipment industry,
with particular regard to:
(a) Identifying individual, design, managerial and organisational
barriers
(b) Confirming or refuting the apparent dearth of fitness industry-
specific inclusive design information or product data
(c) Establishing requirements to support change towards
implementing more inclusive design practices.
78
• Verify the development of an inclusive design standard as a viable
approach to facilitate equipment design to better encompass the needs
of disabled people, and:
(a) Establish support for and cooperation in the standard’s
development process
(b) Provide a forum for a range of supplier representatives to voice
concerns or imperatives concerning the standard
(c) Elicit technical contributions and content for the standard
(d) Recognise reasons for participation in the consultation and
standard’s development process.
5.3 Participating Suppliers
Fitness equipment supplier participation in the consultation process was
achieved through response to an open invitation to the industry to become
involved with the inclusive standard writing process. The invitation was made
through both written and verbal correspondence in popular industry press and
trade journals, attendance at industry trade events and direct targeting of major
equipment manufacturers operating in the UK marketplace. The only conditions
governing participation were that organisational representatives should be
affiliated to a company involved in the design and supply of commercial fitness
equipment, and that they displayed a commitment to working in partnership to
develop an inclusive design standard. No qualifying organisation was turned
away from the group and membership was held open for any company wishing
to join after initial commencement of the study. A total of 15 equipment supplier
organisations, identified in Figure 5.1, responded positively and actively
participated in the consultation process. 13 supplier organisations were involved
throughout the duration of the investigation, with 2 additional companies
(indicated by *) joining subsequently.
79
liCl
H U Rnni
a ! leisurelines
( m a t r i x )
ffPREEOR pulsefitnessrh u g n rtt f i*« p * r f t tn
SPORTESSE
POWER PLATE
S C I F I TScioM't h r f /H m
lE C H N O G y M
Figure 5.1: Equipment supplier organisations participating in theconsultation process
Due to a lack of publically available market share information, it is only possible
to provide an indicative assessment of the breadth of the consultation process
provided by this sample of 15 supplier organisations. This estimate should,
however, be sufficient to highlight the diversity and broad market representation
of the participating supplier group. AMA Research (2005) provide market share
estimates for the ten leading suppliers within the fitness equipment supply
sector which are thought to represent 77% of the total market, as shown in
Table 5.1, which additionally denotes those supplier organisations involved in
the consultation process. Six of the top ten companies participated in the
consultation; including Life Fitness and Technogym who in combination
dominate over 40% of the market and are hence considered to be the main
market leaders.
80
Table 5.1: Market share estimates for key suppliers of commercial fitness
equipment (2004)
Supplier Market Share (%)
Life Fitness UK *** 27Technogym UK *** 16Pulse Fitness *** 8The Nautilus Group UK *** 5Cybex International *** 2.75Precor Products *** 2.75Market share for participating suppliers = 61.5%Star Trac UK 5Concept 2 5Physique 2.75PowerSport International 2.75Market share for non-participating suppliers = 15.5%
TOTAL 77% of market
(***) = suppliers participating in the consultation process
Note: Equal division of reported 11% combined market share is assumed between Cybex
International, Physique, PowerSport International and Precor Products
Source: AMA Research, 2005, pg 56
AMA Research (2005) offer no explicit information on the residual market of
23% not allocated within Table 5.1. This remaining market share is likely to
consist chiefly of small and medium sized enterprises offering small ranges of
traditional equipment, or single products for specialised or novel training areas
such as vibration training platforms, Pilates equipment or spin bikes for group
cycling classes. In addition to the 10 companies identified in Table 5.1, lists of
the Fitness Industry Association (FIA) (2004) equipment supplier membership
and Leisure Industry Week (LIW) (2005) exhibitors identify 38 companies
offering commercial fitness products. This estimate excludes those selling
refurbished gym equipment or providing purely supporting services such as
maintenance or repair work. As First Research Inc. (2008) indicate that there
are fewer than 100 manufacturers of fitness equipment operating in the United
States, and the UK market is known to be considerably smaller than its
American counterpart, the speculative estimate of around 38 different
commercial suppliers competing for the remaining 23% market share is
81
considered reasonable. The consultation process attracted 9 organisations from
this group, equating to around 5.5% of the total market share, which in addition
to the 61.5% of market leaders identified above, establishes the total breadth of
this consultation at approximately 67% of the entire market, as Figure 5.2
represents. It is additionally estimated that 7% of the total market may not gain
direct benefit from the development of the inclusive design standard, as these
suppliers produce children’s, outdoor or small equipment (such as hand weights
and gym balls) which are not covered within the scope of the European safety
standard (EN 957) or the intended scope of the inclusive design standard.
Non-participating Suppliers (other)
10.6%
Suppliers not directly relevant to study
(children's, outdoor or small equipment products)
7%
Figure 5.2: Breadth of consultation process, by estimated supplier
% market share
Overall, this analysis shows that the supplier group recruited for the consultation
process represents a majority in the industry and includes a diverse mix of
organisational size and product range. This large sample size would afford the
opportunity for wide consensus in development of the inclusive design standard,
which was considered important for its subsequent recognition, acceptance and
uptake. With the assembled supplier group being broadly representational of
the actual UK market, findings from the consultation process should extrapolate
with reasonable confidence across the remaining industry supplier population.
Non-participating Suppliers (recognised as having significant market
share): Physique, PowerSport, StarTrac,
Concept 2 15.5%
Participating Suppliers (67%)
Non-participating Suppliers (26%)
Participating Suppliers(other): Matrix, HUR,
Leisure Lines, Sportesse Power Plate, Shokk,
Escape Fitness, EXF, SCIFIT 5.4%
Participating Suppliers(recognised as having
significant market share): Cybex, Precor, Nautilus, Pulse, Technogym, Life
Fitness 61.5%
82
5.4 Research Methods
Following the detailed rationale provided in Chapter Three, ethnographic and
observational research methods were employed to acquire information from a
range of equipment supplier representatives. As ethnography is concerned with
describing social groups or situations (McQueen and Knussen, 2002), this
methodological approach lent itself well to investigating culture and attitudes
towards disability, inclusion and standardisation within the equipment supplier
community. Myers (1997) indicates that the qualitative research methods
typically employed within ethnographic and observational techniques, are
becoming more appropriate in industry as research tends towards managerial
and organisational issues rather than purely technical ones. These investigative
approaches were additionally deemed appropriate for data collection in the
current research due to the exploratory, often intangible and complex nature of
the topics under investigation. Accordingly, the focus group technique was
selected as the principal research method to explore design exclusion and
standardisation from a commercial perspective. Equipment supplier design staff
were consulted and their wider organisations studied through a series of
discussion-based forums as described below, supported by supplementary data
collection though participant observation and other traditional qualitative inquiry
methods.
5.4.1 Focus Group Data Collection
Rooted originally within the sphere of marketing, focus groups have evolved to
become a popular instrument to assess attitudes towards new products,
services, concepts or ideas (McQueen and Knussen, 2002). Questioning in an
interactive group setting, usually under the guidance of a moderator or a
facilitator, enables participants to talk freely with other group members.
McQueen and Knussen (2002) believe therefore, that focus groups can provide
researchers with background knowledge of an area and offer an excellent
insight into the values, beliefs, fears and aspirations that comprise most
83
attitudes. As an exploratory tool regarding new products, focus groups can be
important for acquiring feedback before items are made available to the public,
providing invaluable information about the potential market acceptance of the
product (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). This characteristic was exploited with
the fitness equipment supplier stakeholder group to assess not only tolerance
for inclusive products in the marketplace, but additionally the potential
commercial acceptance for an inclusive design standard. As a research
method, focus groups allowed results to be elicited relatively quickly, often
identifying unexpected issues for exploration and redress. Use of focus groups
also increased the sample size of the study by involving several participants
simultaneously, alongside the additional advantage of being low in cost
(Marshall and Rossman, 1999).
Nine focus group studies were conducted in total, the dates and venue details
of which are provided in Table 5.2 for reference, predominantly with equipment
supplier design staff, but also including some non-design related organisational
representatives. Figure 5.3 illustrates one of these events taking place. Seven
sessions were held between March 2003 and December 2005, comprising the
initial development phase of the inclusive design standard. It is the combined
data from these sessions which forms the main basis for the findings presented
in this chapter. Two follow-up focus groups, held in March 2008 and September
2008, were conducted post-publication of the standard to investigate its
practical implementation within the industry. Feedback from these later studies
is provided more extensively in Chapter Seven. Communication was maintained
between focus group sessions via site visits and informal telephone and email
conversations with the author.
84
Table 5.2: Focus group sessions - dates and venues
Session Date VenueNumber
Standards Development:Room 5511, Surrey Building
1 24th March 2003 City Campus, Sheffield HallamUniversityRoom 7131, Stoddart Building
2 28th October 2003 City Campus, Sheffield HallamUniversityRoom 3215, Eric Mensforth Building
3 21st January 2004 City Campus, Sheffield HallamUniversityRoom 3104, Eric Mensforth Building
4 18th June 2004 City Campus, Sheffield HallamUniversitySeminar Room 1, English Institute of
5 8th December 2004 SportSheffieldRoom 7132, Stoddard Building
6 13th October 2005 City Campus, Sheffield HallamUniversityRoom 2327, Harmer Building
7 5th December 2005 City Campus, Sheffield HallamUniversity
Post-Publication:
8 13th March 2008 Chambers Suite, Staindrop LodgeChapeltown, Sheffield
^ x u oono Chambers Suite, Staindrop Lodge9 9th October 2008 K aChapeltown, Sheffield
85
Figure 5.3: Focus group session 6 attended by fitness equipment
supplier representatives
Participant knowledge and expertise will dictate the quality of data collected,
thus recruitment for focus group members was specifically targeted towards
experienced members of the fitness equipment community. In total, 55 different
individuals attended the sessions to convey their views on the development of
an inclusive design standard, with attendee numbers ranging between 10 and
17 individuals at each focus group session. Of the total number of participants,
42 represented the 15 supplier organisations listed in Figure 5.1. Based on an
analysis of job titles provided (including Product Designer, Industrial Designer,
Head of Design, or Design Manager), half of these could be described as
fitness equipment designers in the sense of being involved in the
implementation or performance of product design tasks. The remainder of the
non-design related organisational representatives reported their occupation to
be one of the following:
• Managing Director or Chief Executive Officer
• Sales, Marketing or Brand Manager
• Business Development Manager or Director
• National or Group Account Manager
• Customer Service or Technical Support Manager.
86
The additional 13 attendees not directly affiliated to an equipment supplier
organisation comprised 6 representatives from the IFI, 1 observer from the
English Federation of Disability Sport and 2 university academics in the fields of
sports equipment design and electronic engineering. The remaining 4
participants were invited experts from the British Standards Institution, YMCAfit,
Equal Adventure Developments and Progress Training and Consultancy Ltd:
offering expertise in product safety standards, fitness instruction, inclusive
design and disability equity, respectively. This final group comprised of
members from the ‘equipment expert panel’ utilised during subsequent phases
of the standard’s development process (see Chapter Six). Attendance by these
individuals at a small number of focus group sessions allowed a firsthand
appreciation of equipment supplier perspectives to be gained. The aim was to
inform the panel’s ensuing decision-making concerning the final content of the
inclusive design standard.
Table 5.3 provides a numeric summary of focus group participants and profiles
the organisations involved in order to illustrate the broad industrial
representativeness of this commercial group. Up to a maximum of 3
representatives per supplier attended each focus group session, resulting in
between 5 and 11 individual organisations, out of the total of 15 identified in
Figure 5.1, being present at every event. From a market share perspective, of
the 6 participating suppliers previously identified by AMA Research (2005) in
Table 5.1 as having a significant presence in the market, an average of 4 were
in attendance at each focus group session.
One fundamental difficulty with focus group studies is that the researcher has
less control over a group compared to a one-on-one interview situation.
Discussion is typically in reaction to the comments of other group members and
thus data can be more difficult to analyse and time can be lost on issues
irrelevant to the topic (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). To minimise this
occurrence all fitness equipment supplier focus groups were run in a semi-
formal meeting style, with clear discussion topics recognised through a
predetermined agenda. Chairing was shared between the IFI National Director,
who ensured that the agenda was followed and also provided information on the
87
IFI and the wider context of the research, and the author, who led discussion on
specific topics. Data was recorded through meeting minutes, with supporting
field notes also collected by the author. An example of a focus group agenda
and minutes can be found in Appendix F.
Table 5.3: Focus group participants and profile of supplier representation
Number of Number ofSession Total Number Supplier Major MarketNumber of Participants Organisations Share Suppliers
Represented Represented*Standards Development:
1 13 9 5
2 12 7 4
3 13 5 4
4 11 8 6
5 10 6 2
6 14 11 5
7 12 8 5
Pos t-Publica tion:
8 17 7 4
9 12 7 4
* Major market share suppliers as identified by AMA Research (2005)
To ensure that a sufficiently qualified group of experienced fitness equipment
designers were consulted, the agenda and any supporting documentation were
provided to attendees prior to each focus group meeting. This enabled all
representatives to consult with colleagues as appropriate for subsequent
feedback during the sessions, which was particularly important to ensure the
inclusion of non-UK based individuals within the study. Taking this approach
and including non-design related supplier representatives in the focus group
88
sessions enabled wider organisational barriers to achieving design changes,
such as the difficulties in securing resources for design work against competing
business priorities, to also be identified. All participants were encouraged to
attend and observe the practical fitness equipment testing sessions, described
in Chapter Four, ahead of focus group meetings. Interaction with disabled and
non-disabled users was intended as an educational and awareness-raising
exercise to inform and focus deliberations. A preparatory workshop was
incorporated into the first meeting for those unable to partake in these practical
test sessions, and to facilitate a critical reflection on their experiences for those
who did attend. Working in groups of 3 or 4, each team was asked to consider
generic products from the perspectives of individuals with a variety of physical,
sensory and learning impairments in order to encourage exploration of the
access challenges, in their opinion, of a range of current commercial fitness
equipment items. Details of the issues raised are recorded in the meeting
minutes which can be found in Appendix F. A concluding discussion involving
all participants summarised the topics identified by individual groups, to give an
increased appreciation of the potentially widespread inaccessibility of their
industry’s products. Specific examples of design exclusion were provided during
the fourth focus group session, when a summary of the foremost themes
evidenced by the testers for a range of generic product types, as provided in
Appendix E, was presented. All focus groups were operated in an open
discussion format, with questions posed following the scheduled agenda. The
maintenance of free flowing discussion and inquiry was encouraged between
group members, with further clarification and probing questions interjected by
the author as deemed appropriate, to aid understanding or to avoid the
discourse straying unreasonably off topic.
5.4.2 Supplementary Research Methods
Participant observation was utilised to further support investigation of inclusive
design within the fitness industry, to capture anecdotal and supplier-sensitive
information, both during and outside of focus group sessions. Communication
was pursued with equipment supplier designer staff through informal interviews
89
and discussions conducted during site visits to organisational headquarters, and
also via telephone and email contact. Fitness industry press, advertising and
published company documentation was also consulted and reviewed. The
implementation of these additional research methods was necessary to
overcome supplier concerns surrounding confidentiality during participation in a
public forum at which direct competitors were present. The protection of
intellectual property was paramount to assure candid and open discussion.
Offering clear opportunities for interaction outside of focus group meetings
allowed the author to act in an intermediary role which preserved the industrial
insulation of competing organisations within the group. Subsequent
dissemination of supplier-specific research information in generic formats
allowed the independence of the author and confidentiality amongst
organisations to be maintained. An additional benefit of engaging several
research methods was in the capture of information which would otherwise be
lost through reliance on a solitary approach.
5.4.3 Data Analysis
A content analysis was performed on data from the focus group meeting
minutes and observational analysis to identify information relevant to the
consultation objectives. Critical reflections by the author on site visits, industry
literature, email and telephone discussions were also included, alongside a
review of the experiential learning engendered through involvement with the
supplier group to identify barriers, opportunities and imperatives for the
development of an inclusive design standard. The results of this analysis would
help to ensure that the final standard was written to meet the requirements of
fitness equipment design teams and the organisations within which they work.
5.5 Research Findings
For clarity of reporting and ease of comprehension by the reader, the research
findings, although often interrelated, are now presented within six distinct topic
90
areas which relate to the consultation objectives set out at the beginning of the
chapter.
5.5.1 Existence of Design Exclusion
Early consultations aimed to substantiate the existence of design exclusion in
current commercial fitness equipment. Establishing a consensus on the
existence of barriers to access for disabled people was deemed crucial prior to
exploring the phenomenon and available avenues for change. Attendance at
the practical fitness equipment testing sessions and the preparatory workshop
session held during the first focus group provided explicit opinions on
equipment accessibility. Table 5.4 summarises the main equipment
components identified by supplier representatives as having potential
accessibility shortcomings. The information contained within Table 5.4 is
extracted directly from the meeting minutes of the first focus group workshop
session which are provided in Appendix F.
Table 5.4 offers further evidence to that previously provided by disabled people
of the widespread inaccessibility of existing fitness equipment. Interestingly, the
perceived access barriers offered by the supplier group are not altogether
dissimilar to those identified through the practical equipment testing by disabled
users described in Chapter Four. The results are a small subset of the user
requirements identified by this empirical testing approach. Supplier
representatives revealed that attending the testing sessions was an effective
means to outline required product developments in a non-threatening way, with
increased ownership of the challenges provided after seeing them at first hand
(Baker, 2006). A further reported observation was that several of the access
issues identified were common both across impairment groups and across
product types.
91
Table 5.4: Main equipment components identified by supplier
representatives as having potential accessibility shortcomings
(presented by generic impairment type)
Fitness Equipment Supplier Consultation:Potential sources of design exclusion for disabled people accessing
current commercial fitness equipmentPhysical Disability... Visual Impairment...
• Most cardiovascular equipment focuses on the lower body
• Low starting speed• Low step-up or step-over height• Need to press buttons including
the emergency stop• Seats• Grips• Stability straps• Unilateral movement• Instructions - aimed towards
disabled people? Pictorial• Handles• Adjustments• Low start weights• Pre-stretch mechanisms• Space between equipment (turning
circles, space for helpers)• Assumption made by instructors
about peoples abilities• Disability training required -
suppliers provide a training package/induction but generally do not include disability issues
• Product orientation and recognition• Colour contrast - adjustments,
flooring, walls• Tactile• No sharp edges, protruding pieces• Ramps not steps• Consoles - pattern to buttons,
colour contrast, tactile• Standardisation across range e.g.
seat adjustment• Panic button• Clear space around equipment• Training and induction• Lighting• Identification of weight selected• Confusion with mixed weights e.g.
lbs, kgs etc
Learning Difficulty... Hearing Impairment...• Obvious entry point to the machine• Instructions and charts - pictures• kgs, lbs etc - what do they mean?• Easy set-up• Distractions - noise, layout too
busy, loud music• Guided learning• Number of commands before
machine starts• Reading and writing - console?• Daunting environment
• Balanced affected therefore additional handrails
• Clear visuals needed to compensate for no audio feedback
• Auto shutdown for treadmill as cannot hear if moving
• Clear written instructions. Video? Sign language?
• Written induction material so can take away from session. Jargon?
• Demonstration important
Source: Fitness equipment supplier focus group consultation
Sheffield Hallam University, 24th March 2003
92
5.5.2 Current Perspectives on Inclusivity Within the Industry
Following agreement between focus group attendees on the presence of design
exclusion, consultation moved on to examine the critical reasons which had
contributed to this prevailing state of affairs. Two interconnected reasons
emerged as paramount; a small perceived market size for ‘disability equipment’
and also a lack of practical information on designing for a wider consumer base.
In combination, these factors have become a self-sustaining cycle of inaction
towards provision of equipment for disabled people. The history of the industry,
with its body building roots offering no innate link to people with impairments,
provided a major rationale for the widespread deficiency in accessible fitness
products. Supplier representatives described the situation where there is no
expressed demand from clubs for equipment accessible to disabled people,
resulting in the preconceived notion that there is no market for such products.
Absence of these market pull forces, to which product designers often respond,
has led to the assumption of a small market size and therefore little investment
into the manufacture of accessible products. Without intervention, this
paradoxical situation is unlikely to change as Bennett (1999) succinctly
describes:
“People stay away from a club because the equipment isn't there, but
the equipment isn't there because the people who need it stay away.”
(Bennett 1999, pg 32)
This finding highlighted the importance of the research in breaking the cycle of
inactivity which had been created amongst the supplier group.
Organisations who had previously ventured into the disability marketplace
reported one-off product ranges, accompanied by very small production runs,
which were not deemed commercially viable or sustainable. In these instances,
participants at the focus group identified that product design had been solely
focussed on the needs of wheelchair users and that there had been minimal or
93
no user consultation during the development process. Keates et al. (2000) have
found that this form of stereotyping, which maintains the image of someone who
is physically impaired as being a wheelchair user, to be a very common
problem. This highly selective and focused form of provision is likely to have
unwittingly contributed to the apparent lack of demand for accessible products
reported by the supplier representatives. The widely held belief from the focus
group attendees was that market size must be maximised for commercial
viability and for the uptake of any inclusive design standard. Discussions around
this topic indicated that in order to make a viable business case from the
suppliers’ perspective, it would be vital that the standard provided for the widest
possible market whilst not excluding existing consumers, and that a range of
impairments was considered to extend awareness beyond only wheelchair
users.
5.5.3 Understanding of Inclusive Design
Focus group participants reported little awareness of inclusive design principles
and practice within the existing commercial fitness equipment industry. The
historic focus solely on provision for wheelchair users was indicative of this
current level of disability knowledge. Supplier representatives recognised the
presence of knowledge and communication gaps particularly, but not
exclusively, between disabled users and product designers. Disabled people
were rarely consulted concerning their needs during the design process or
during strategic market planning by those commissioning design work. This
situation is depicted in Figure 5.4 and is similar to the model reported by Keates
and Clarkson (2003a).
When the principles of inclusive design were initially proffered to the supplier
group, misconceptions about the nature of the topic were highly apparent.
Misunderstandings between ‘design for disability’ and ‘inclusive design’ were in
evidence, causing concern and anxiety amongst focus group participants about
having to design and market products for “absolutely everybody” or “just for the
94
disabled”. Supplier representatives required reassurance that their current
clientele would not be excluded from using inclusively designed products and
also that compromises would have to be made between the needs of different
disability groups requiring opposing features on products. Due to minimal
previous contact with users with impairments, fears surrounding interacting with
disabled people and appropriate terminology were also discussed at length.
None of the equipment supplier design staff present at the focus group forums
had experienced any formal training in inclusive design or similar disability-
focused design methods, and were unaware of where to go to access
appropriate information concerning the topic. This overriding deficit in inclusive
design knowledge has serious implications for design education, design
methodologies and industrial practice and offered an explanation for the current
situation of inaccessible fitness equipment design. Development of a standard
therefore provided potential opportunities for important awareness raising and
education of product design staff in the positive tenets of inclusive design.
UsersDesigners
Equipment
DesignCommissioners
Source: Adapted from Keates and Clarkson, 2003a, pg 77-78
Figure 5.4: Knowledge and communication gap model for the fitnessindustry
95
5.5.4 Availability of Inclusive Design Information
A dearth of practical information on including the needs of disabled people in
product design was cited as being significant in impeding the fitness industry’s
change towards more inclusive design practices. Directly quoting one focus
group participant, a Design Manager for a large multinational equipment
supplier:
“We are willing to make changes to our designs to make them more
accessible, but we just don’t know what changes are needed.”
(Focus group participant, Session 3, 21st January 2004)
Collectively, focus group attendees were unable to give any explicit examples of
fitness industry-specific inclusive design information. This concurred with
literature review findings (detailed in Chapter Two) that there have been few, if
any, other studies on this particular facet of the subject. Hence this research
drew similar conclusions to those found by Voshol et al. (1997, pg 16), from
their work involving design for elderly and disability populations that “the
appetite for the market is bigger than its insight”.
Dong et al. (2002) and Keates and Clarkson (2003a) deem information vital to
the success of inclusive design. Although existing literature on inclusive design
is considerable, its dispersion across different specialisms and tendency for
confinement within academia was suggested as problematic during focus group
feedback. It is consequently difficult for product designers to inform themselves
adequately - which is not a situation unique to the fitness industry (see for
example Clarkson et al., 2000). Clarkson et al. (2000) describe a need for
coherent and usable design guidance to enable product developers to access
and take advantage of this important new disability market. Fitness equipment
design staff representatives indicated that without such information being
readily available, it is unlikely that they would have the inclination and resources
to seek it out, or the confidence to act upon it. It was thus apparent that an
96
unmistakable opportunity existed for research to provide new and useful design
knowledge to the fitness equipment industry.
With fitness equipment design staff reporting they had insufficient time within
the constraints of the design process to interact with users, their preferred
solution was to call on consultancy services and utilise existing information.
There was obvious anxiety from design teams surrounding the uptake of
inclusive design practices, thus in order to alleviate this fear, user information
would have to be presented in a familiar or non-threatening format. Product
designers attending the focus group sessions were largely acquainted with the
use of standards as a design tool. Their imperative was for this type of
documentation to facilitate easy practical implementation of inclusive design
theory and provide understanding of the needs of disabled people whilst
avoiding information overload. Those focus group attendees who would
ultimately be tasked with implementing the standard highlighted the need for
cognisance of the corporate setting to be observed. Additionally, any successful
standard would need to allow them freedom to focus on creative and
resourceful problem solving, without the requirement for excessive
supplementary research.
5.5.5 Challenges to Adopting an Inclusive Design Standard
With a general consensus reached that it would be of value to produce an
inclusive standard specifically for the fitness equipment industry, the focus
group were probed for impediments to adoption of such a standard.
Unsurprisingly, early reactions to designing for a wider audience were
analogous to those reported by researchers investigating other industries -
development, testing and assessment expenditure, along with the tyranny of
time to market and concern over final product price (Keates and Clarkson,
2003a). Without question the most recurring and dominant concern from all
supplier representatives was cost. Competition in the fitness equipment industry
is aggressive due to numerous competitors and product substitutes, with many
97
supplier organisations having long term contractual agreements with gyms and
therefore being limited to fixed prices and equipment specifications whilst under
contract. Manufacturer margins have also been reduced due to the emergence
and buying power of large fitness operator chains. All of these factors have led
to limited funding for product development (Davies, 2004). Supplier
representatives were therefore mindful of the financial implications of both
development and subsequent implementation of an inclusive design standard.
In their discussions, the equipment supplier group described the idea that
Keates et al. (2000, pg 1) label ‘undue burden’, that is “anything that would cost
more than the able-bodied version”. The necessity to keep costs down was
decidedly two-fold; firstly the direct impact on company profit margins and
secondly, the need to keep product offerings around established price points for
cost-conscious purchasers. As one focus group participant surmised: “It’s not
functional if no one buys it”, highlighting the importance of this latter
requirement in ensuring that inclusively designed products actually reach fitness
facility venues for disabled people to use. General focus group opinion was that
many access issues were likely to be common across both impairment groups
and equipment types. Solving selected problems could thus help a large
number of disabled people and may not be particularly expensive or
complicated to implement, however those design issues which would
significantly increase final product cost would have to incur a premium for
buyers in the marketplace.
Focus group participants recognised that in order to minimise expense and
eliminate duplication of effort, it would be advantageous to work together on the
development of an inclusive design standard. It was acknowledged that
application of a design standard, and also inclusive design principles, need not
necessarily increase product cost if requirements are reasonable and
implementation occurs at a suitable point in the design process. Similar to the
findings of Coleman (2001a), the use of a standard to rectify design exclusion
was favoured in the early stages of the design process, where the greatest cost
savings may be achieved.
98
Further interrogation of supplier representatives revealed that much of the
apprehension surrounding increased expense stemmed from confusion
between the concepts of designing for disability and inclusive design. The
increased market-size potential of the latter approach as a way of recouping a
return on any investment required was appreciated, and support was given for
design changes that did not have a detrimental impact on non-disabled users.
Fitness equipment design staff were encouraged to make technical
contributions to the content of the inclusive standard to mediate this occurrence
and a formal consultation period was included in the research approach
(Chapter Six) to further facilitate their input.
The second most apparent concern, which specifically stemmed from selection
of a design standard as the medium for disseminating inclusive design
knowledge, surrounded stifling of designer creativity. Misgivings related to lack
of product differentiation were voiced, with equipment designers worried that
products “will all look the same”. For this industry, which has very similar base
products and numerous product substitutes available to consumers, it was vital
for manufacturers to be able to incorporate unique selling points into their
designs. BSI (undated b) report this as a common myth surrounding standards
usage and advocate that rather than inhibiting innovation, standards provide an
information platform that then allows time for the creativity and invention
required to drive product differentiation. Focus group discussions concluded
that the inclusive design standard should concentrate, as a general principle, on
performance rather than design requirements as these are less likely to inhibit
innovation. Product designers can then be left free to use standards without
diluting their own intellectual property or ingenuity. Fostering a good practice
rather than a compliance culture may also offer greater freedom in design and
product differentiation.
A typical consumer view of the accessible fitness equipment market is held by
Petrick (2002), who suggests that:
99
“Strength equipment manufacturers have not recognized the
potential market for this kind of machine, and when they do, it will still
be many years before these machines can be developed, tested and
enter the market at reasonable prices”.
(Petrick, 2002, pg 4)
Supplier representatives identified with this description, particularly in terms of
the efficiency of their ability to respond to changing market needs, thus there
was strong support for a design standard that would allay these concerns by
enabling accelerated time to market for new inclusive product developments.
Modification of existing equipment was viewed as a potentially more rapid and
inexpensive solution with shorter lead-in times compared to the development of
completely new products. To further increase their competitive advantage,
supplier representatives requested a staged approach to issuing a standard,
hastening the infiltration of new inclusive design knowledge into the
marketplace. Additional requirements could then be incorporated as research
findings generated further understanding of the complexities of the subject.
Agreement was reached between focus group participants that implementation
of a standard incorporating inclusive design principles should offer no undue
increase in product development times relative to those of other design
approaches. Consolidation of relevant instructions into a single source should
also enable product designers to work comfortably and competently within
commercial resource and timeframe constraints. The importance of considering
the standard in the earliest stages of the design process was reiterated.
In order to counteract the health and safety excuses sometimes used to justify a
lack of equipment provision for disabled people, supplier representatives were
concerned that the inclusive design standard followed the traditional precedent
for standards to deal with health and safety, alongside risk management issues.
Reduction of risk and potential liabilities were also important with particular
reference to the safety requirements set out in the fitness equipment standard
BS EN 957: Stationary Training Equipment (BSI, all dates). Although this
standard does not explicitly include safety considerations for disabled people,
focus group attendees refused to implement any design changes that would be
100
in conflict with these criteria. Whilst the principal intent of the inclusive design
standard was to improve functionality and usability, many of the requirements
proposed to increase access would simultaneously address safety concerns. An
important benefit of standardisation and also inclusive design should be to
improve the suitability of products for their intended purpose, thus the inclusive
design standard should enable safer access for a wider range of users.
The final major challenge associated with the uptake of an inclusive design
standard, conveyed through collective focus group opinions, related to
organisational priorities. Although not an outcome of choosing the
methodological approach of developing a design standard, supplier
representatives reported potential barriers to acceptance stemming from a lack
of knowledge within their organisations concerning disability and impairment.
Those with non-UK design departments faced further barriers with information
sharing and the alignment of inclusive design practices with frequently
conflicting international priorities. Supplier representatives suggested that the
standard could be useful, alongside a precis of the business case for inclusive
design, to educate and instruct colleagues. The provision of detailed
specifications within the standard would additionally enable informed decision
making by product designers, design commissioners, sales and financial teams
as to the true resource implications of inclusive design.
5.5.6 Motivations for Participation in Standards Development
Focus group participants were content to work alongside competitors to lend
their collective expertise towards producing meaningful documentation.
Although involvement in a commercial forum raised some confidentiality
concerns, support was gained for this shared work approach due to time and
resource limitations. Supplier representatives reasoned that each would benefit
from the knowledge transfer of good practice brought by a standard, to ensure
products were fit for purpose. Small, single-product offering organisations,
having comparatively limited resources, were particularly keen to work together
101
to reap cost reduction benefits. The primary reason conveyed by all
organisations for participation in the standards development process was to
influence the content of the standard. Strategically, supplier representatives
wished to be involved in shaping this emerging new area, with explicit value
placed on the opportunity to gain advanced knowledge and insight into the
standards’ requirements. Enthusiasm was asserted for a formal procedure by
which purchasers could reliably compare a supplier’s inclusively designed
products to those offered by competitors. Significant value was placed on the
ability to brand-build and to encourage the consumer confidence and loyalty
which, as BSI (2002) suggest, is associated with conforming to a recognised
standard. Further important rationales cited by supplier representatives for
involvement in the standard’s development process included projected
commercial gains from increased equipment sales and also avoidance of
possible litigation against Disability Discrimination Act (HMSO, 1995; TSO,
2005) legislation. Promoting a positive company profile through a public
commitment to inclusion was also a popular reason for participation.
5.6 Conclusion
Upon completion, the inclusive design standard was intended to be taken up by
design teams within the commercial fitness equipment industry. It was therefore
deemed prudent to extend the research to these stakeholders, in order to
consider the commercial realities and constraints on such an endeavour
throughout the standard’s development process and subsequent
implementation. Encouraging such input and negotiation of requirements was
considered essential to secure publication of a meaningful and achievable
design standard. This approach should also maximise the likelihood of future
adoption and compliance to the standard by participating companies. The
current chapter has therefore addressed research objective (3) by utilising a
series of focus groups, attended by supplier representatives, to examine the
barriers, opportunities and imperatives for the development of an inclusive
design standard. From a methodological perspective the focus group technique
102
was successful in gathering data relevant to the aims of the study, and candid
and open discussion was achieved amongst a group of competitors who rarely
work together. Consultation encompassed a wide cross-section of
organisations, including many major players within the industry, suggesting
findings should be broadly indicative of the UK fitness equipment industry as a
whole.
Focus group participants corroborated the presence of design exclusion in
many existing fitness products. Critical reasons uncovered for the widespread
deficit of accessible equipment in the UK market were chiefly related to a small
perceived market size and lack of practical information about designing for
disabled people. To facilitate change, product design staff reported the need for
knowledge concerning inclusive design which did not inhibit their creativity or
individuality. Whilst rational concerns were described by supplier nominees
during focus group sessions, there was overall agreement on the merits of
developing an inclusive design standard. The development of a standard was
advocated as a viable approach to enable equipment design to better meet the
needs of disabled people within the industry, providing the following concerns
were addressed:
• Development and final implementation costs should be minimised
• Target market size should be maximised
• Products should be capable of being developed with short lead-in times
to market
• Technical content should be achievable, in terms of current
manufacturing and production processes
• Consideration should be given to safety and risk management, whilst not
negating established product safety requirements
• Suppression of designer creativity should be avoided.
The importance of these research findings was to provide information which
would guide the content of the standard, to ensure that the business case for
inclusive design was supported, alongside offering practical knowledge
103
regarding its application. Direct involvement from equipment designers and also
non-design related organisational representatives was indispensable in
identifying these issues, with focus group sessions providing an agreeable and
open forum for this essential dialogue. An appetite for inclusive design
knowledge was found to exist and, for a myriad of reasons, supplier
representatives were keen to participate in the development of a standard which
would have a direct commercial influence on their industry. The evolving role of
focus group participants, from providing feedback on generic commercial
imperatives to offering specific technical contributions to the standard, indicated
the importance of supplier involvement throughout the standard’s development
process. The key findings elicited in this chapter were subsequently utilised to
filter user testing session data in order to determine the definitive content of the
inclusive design standard. Chapter Six describes this synthesis of user and
supplier stakeholder data in detail.
104
Chapter Six: Achieving Consensus on Content for the Inclusive Design Standard
6.1 Introduction
Standards are in essence codified knowledge; consequently drafting work does
not generally begin until all the basic data are to hand (BSI, 1997b). As
highlighted in Chapter One, drafting of the inclusive design standard for the
fitness equipment industry could not commence until exploratory studies had
been completed in order to obtain relevant basic data. Chapters Four and Five
describe the acquisition of this knowledge from disabled users and commercial
fitness equipment supplier design teams and organisations, after which the task
of documenting the standard could begin, in order to present this information in
a format more suitable for dissemination. It was necessary for the needs of all
identified stakeholder groups to be amalgamated equitably to achieve
agreement on the content of the final standard and thus meet research
objective (4). This chapter describes the predetermined development process
implemented to gain this necessary consensus. A comprehensive procedural
commentary is provided here, with emphasis placed on conveying those
decision-making processes used to cohesively merge conflicting stakeholder
requirements. Excerpts from the original data sets have been utilised wherever
possible to illustrate the evolution of the standard throughout the development
process. Additional to the information provided in this chapter, a wider
discussion is offered in Chapter Eight on the overall efficacy of the selected
methodological approach in achieving a successful inclusive design standard.
6.2 7-Phase Content Development Process
Whilst the approaches decreed by major organisations involved in
standardisation vary in their detail, all develop standards using broadly similar
methods. From inception through to publication, formally documented and
controlled processes exist to ensure the transparency, fairness and general
105
consensus of all standards (BSI, 2005e). The typical approach utilised by many
national standards-setting bodies is illustrated in Figure 6.1, which offers a
specific example of the development process of a British Standard (BSI,
1997b). According to BSI (2005d), this standard development process
comprises of the 7 major phases identified in Table 6.1. The decision was made
to adopt this 7-phase process, proffered by a recognised and respected national
standards development body, for the development of the inclusive design
standard. Implementing an analogous approach to that in operation at BSI was
thought prudent to engender wide consensus and offer a transparency of
approach. This latter requirement was deemed particularly relevant due to
potential sensitivities regarding commercial competition within the fitness
equipment industry. It was considered that adherence to this established
method of development would maximise the validity, and hence likely
acceptance, of the resulting standard by all parties. An overview of the process
adopted for development of the inclusive design standard aligned with the 7-
phase approach is provided for reference in Figure 6.2 and the individual
development phases are now discussed in detail.
Table 6.1: Major phases in the development of a BSI national standard
Phase Brief Description
1. Proposal for new work Confirmation that new standard is needed2. Project acceptance Creation of a business case for the work3. Drafting Drafting of manuscript by appropriate experts4. Public comment period Broader audience comments on manuscript5. Approval Final content and approval to publish standard6. Publication Dissemination and announcement7. Review Periodic revision and maintenance
Source: Data from BSI, 2005d, pg 4
106
Proposal occepted?
YesUpdate Standards announcement
c Set target dotes
Yes Arrange consultant 7
Draft for public E»mment agreed
Update Standards announcement
Yes
Revise
Second DPC? Consensus ochieved?
Yes
Final editing
Publication
Source: BSI, 1997b, pg 25
Figure 6.1: Activities in the development of a BSI national standard
107
Phase 1: Proposal for new work
Phase 2: Project acceptance
Phase 3: Drafting
Practical user testing sessions
Establish need for new standard
- literature review of pertinent informationZ
Project acceptance & stakeholder agreement to participate
IFormation of standards committee
Equipment supplier
(focus group) consultation
Z
ZDraft for
development (IFI Equipment
Standards - Stage One)
Z
Feedback on draft for
development
Revised draft of manuscript
Initial draft of inclusive design standard manuscript
i ---Equipment expert panel consultation
- acceptance, amendments, conflict resolution
Supplementary practical product
testing
Desktop research
- alternate industries & impairment-specific
data
Phase 4: Public comment period
Consensus on draft manuscript for public comment
iPublic comment period
Phase 5: Approval
Equipment Disability Individualsupplier organisation disabled people
feedback feedback feedback
Equipment expert panel consultation
- acceptance, amendments, conflict resolutionz
Consensus on final manuscript
zFinal editorial check
4 :
zPractical validation trial
I
Phase 6: Publication
Endorsement to publish
r - :Publication of inclusive design standard
(IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two)
Phase 7: Review
Dissemination Awareness-raising& publicity
Periodic review & maintenance
- confirmation, revision or withdrawal of standard
Figure 6.2: Inclusive design standard development process aligned
to BSI 7-phase model
108
6.2.1 Phase 1: Proposal for New Work
The first step in the development of a standard is to confirm that a particular
standard is needed (ISO, 2003b). In effect this opening phase is a feasibility
study, where a review of existing standards and parallel activities in other
organisations is undertaken to avoid unnecessary duplication. To assist in
searching, the precise technical scope of the future standard must first be
defined (ISO, 2003c). Thus, the remit of the inclusive design standard was set
to encompass: ‘the specification of general inclusive design requirements for
Class S stationary training equipment as defined under the scope of EN 957-1
(BSI, 1997)’. This includes accessibility requirements for all gym equipment
used in training areas of organisations, such as health and fitness clubs, where
access and control is specifically regulated by the owner. Medical equipment or
equipment intended for outdoor use or by children was expressly not included.
As explained in detail in Chapter Two, a critique of available literature revealed
no evidence of any previous work or published standard in this area.
6.2.2 Phase 2: Project Acceptance
The project acceptance phase extends the feasibility study of the earliest stage
in the process of developing a standard. Alongside establishing a genuine need
for standardisation in a particular area, research is required to assess if there is
adequate interest in the field to enable a voluntary consensus to be reached
(BSI, 2000). Major stakeholders must be identified and their support and
commitment to actively participate in the project must be obtained. This
research typically involves the creation of a business case (ISO, 2003b; BSI,
2005d). A business case for the inclusive design standard was established and
conveyed to commercial fitness equipment suppliers through the focus group
work described in Chapter Five. Assurances of participation were received from
approximately 67% of the total industry, on the understanding that the standard
development process would be:
109
• Based on consultation and consensus
• Resource and cost effective
• Respectful of confidentiality concerns
• Effective in satisfying current deficits in knowledge surrounding
inclusive fitness equipment design
• Capable of providing for long term sustainability of inclusive design
information within the industry.
This level of commitment was judged appropriate to achieve a consensus
standard for the fitness equipment industry, and the adoption of the formal 7-
phase standard development process shown in Figure 6.2 should satisfy the
above stipulations for participation.
From the perspective of the disabled user stakeholder group, acceptance of the
project was determined indirectly by the extensive evidence of low participation
rates in physical activity by this group. Compelling accounts of inaccessible
fitness equipment, accompanied by a handful of specific examples, were
prevalent in the critiqued literature on the subject as discussed in Chapter Two.
General dissatisfaction with current provision by disabled people, and those
acting on their behalf, signified a call for action. The willingness of disabled
individuals to participate in product testing indicated clear support from within
this stakeholder group to contribute to the development of an inclusive design
standard. Results obtained from this practical testing of fitness equipment
additionally demonstrated a real need for change.
6.2.3 Phase 3: Drafting
With stakeholder commitment to collaborate on the project secured, work
commenced on drafting of content for the standard’s manuscript.
110
6.2.3.1 Formation of a Standards Committee
The drafting phase of any standard development process is almost without
exception iterative and, typically, time-consuming. To facilitate more rapid
progress, drafting is commonly performed by a small group or individual expert
before undergoing wider consultation (BSI, 2005d). Specialist knowledge and a
range of skills are required to secure the quality of the initial draft (BSI, undated
a), thus formation of a standards committee inevitably involves recruitment of
qualified representatives from groups concerned by the subject matter.
Commercial companies, potential users and individuals expressing a more
general interest may be amongst those participating (BNQ, undated).
Instigated in 2001 the ‘equipment expert panel’ was originally convened to act in
an advisory capacity to the IFI on equipment-related matters. Due to the lack of
publicised activity in the area, each member was selected and approached
individually to be invited to serve on the panel, based on their technical
knowledge, past experience, impartiality and interest in the subject area. In
2003 their role evolved to encompass responsibility for the development and
corroboration of technical content for the inclusive design standard. Also known
as the ‘IFI Equipment Panel’, this committee comprised of experienced industry
experts in the fields of fitness equipment design, design legislation and safety
standardisation, fitness instruction, inclusive (outdoor adventure) sports
equipment design and disability equity. Also included were an IFI Programme
representative, and a user representative and elected supplier representative
drawn from individuals participating in the earlier user and equipment supplier
studies. The multidisciplinary team of individuals who comprised the equipment
expert panel throughout the standard’s development process were:
Equipment Expert Panel Members
• Mr Will Behenna
Organisation: Progress Training and Consultancy Ltd
Field(s) of expertise: IFI Regional Co-ordinator
Disability Equity Trainer
User Representative
111
• Mrs Sue Catton
Organisation:
Field(s) of expertise:
• Mr Howard Davies
Organisation:
Field(s) of expertise:
• Mr Spencer Holmes
Organisation:
Field(s) of expertise:
• Ms Dawn Hughes
Organisation:
Field(s) of expertise:
• DrSureshPaul
Organisation:
Field(s) of expertise:
Inclusive Fitness Initiative / Montgomery Leisure
Services
IFI National Director
Equipment Expert Panel Chairperson
IFI Programme Representative
British Standards Institution
Chairman of BSI EN 957 UK Standards
Committee
Former Fitness Equipment Designer
Elected Supplier Representative
YMCAfit
IFI Co-ordinator YMCAfit (2001 - 2003)
Fitness Practitioner
Fitness Training/Programming for Disabled
People
School of Engineering, Sheffield Hallam
University
PhD Researcher (Inclusive Fitness Equipment
Design)
Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering (NHS)
Equal Adventure Developments
Inclusive Design Expert
Inclusive (Outdoor Adventure) Sports Equipment
Product Designer
Academic Researcher
112
• Miss Sara Wicebloom
Organisation: YMCAfit
Field(s) of expertise: IFI Co-ordinator YMCAfit (2004 onwards)
Fitness Practitioner
Fitness Training/Programming for Disabled
People
Tasked with negotiating the detailed specifications to be contained within the
standard, this group offered expertise from their respective areas of the industry
as defined above. Throughout their consideration of successive drafts of the
inclusive design standard (as detailed below), panel members committed to
ensure the resulting standard was fit for purpose and would achieve a wide
consensus. During a series of 14 meetings, held at 2 to 3 month intervals
between 3rd February 2003 and 24th April 2006, this working group made
assessments, commentary and judgments on the developing standard.
Although the greater part of the technical work was completed through
discourse during these face-to-face meetings, interim correspondence also
occurred via email and telephone discussions where necessary.
6.2.3.2 Draft for Development
Lead times for standards vary from a matter of months to several years (BSI,
undated a). Consequently, it has become possible to publish interim documents
at different stages in the standardisation process (ISO, 2003c). BSI describes a
‘draft for development’ as:
“a provisional document, developed under broadly the same
processes as a formal standard and published when standardization
of a particular subject is urgently required, but further research or
development is required before it can be published as a
British Standard. ”
(BSI, 2005e, pg 3)
113
Drafts for development offer intermediate specifications and are typically
released early in product or technology cycles when guidance is critically
needed. Offering insights into new or developing areas, before the development
of a full standard, these informal standards can enable companies to plan
business developments and give early competitive advantage (BSI, undated b;
BSI, 2005d).
Release of a draft for development was judged fitting in the case of inclusive
design for the fitness equipment industry due to the complete originality of the
topic under investigation. Owing to the newness of this area of interest, many
iterations of the manuscript were foreseen. To ensure useful design information
entered the commercial domain as soon as reasonably practicable, and aware
that it would take time to develop a consensus standard, the decision was taken
to publish an interim document. This approach would satisfy the expressed
need from focus group participants for immediate and practical inclusive design
information (outlined in Chapter Five) and, importantly, would maintain
equipment supplier interest, momentum and input into the work. A staged
approach to the introduction of the standard was also considered advantageous
in allowing a more gradual industrial change process to occur. Giving
opportunities to trial practical implementation of basic inclusive design
requirements would enable equipment supplier design team education and
feedback. Moreover, a wider organisational assessment of the merits of
inclusive design could also be made by equipment suppliers. Challenges
associated with adoption of a completely new design approach could be
exposed, and addressed, where necessary. Such experiential learning would be
valuable for the development, management and execution of the forthcoming
standard and would additionally afford the equipment expert panel the ability to
integrate any emerging new best practice.
Entitled the ‘Inclusive Fitness Initiative Fitness Equipment Standards - Stage
One’, the draft for development was released on 1st April 2004 and issued a
little over 12 months after commencement of the project, which aligns with
predicted timescales from BSI for production of such documents (BSI, 2005d).
Published with the expressed intent of being replaced with a more
114
comprehensive, wide-ranging and complete standard, the draft for development
would remain unchanged until superseded by the ‘Stage Two’ version, due for
publication in mid-2006, offering a two-year period of stability to the industry.
The 23-page draft for development, provided in full in Appendix G, was based
upon the early findings of the investigation presented in Chapter Four, modified
by comments and discussions in the meetings of the equipment expert panel.
Negating public comments and forgoing a wider consensus is considered
acceptable in the case of drafts for development to speed time to market (BSI,
2005b). A total of 13-pages of design requirements were presented,
accompanied by cover and title pages, contents listing and a foreword. The
design requirements encompassed general inclusive design criteria for all
product types, alongside those specifically applicable to strength training-type
equipment, consoles, bicycles, treadmills, upper body ergometers, rowing
machines, steppers and cross trainers. As an example, Figure 6.3 illustrates the
design requirements for strength training-type equipment. Data used in the
production of the standard was heavily biased towards the professional
experience of equipment expert panel members, with casual observations of
disabled users during practical equipment testing sessions, providing some
additional information. At this point no formal analysis of the test session data
was available, thus knowledge acquired from the sessions was of perceived
user needs, based only on informal and incidental observations. These intuitive
results were also supplemented by the limited knowledge relating to solutions to
inaccessible fitness equipment design previously captured within published
literature (see Chapter Two).
115
Incl
usiv
e Fi
tnes
s In
itiat
ive
Fitn
ess
Equi
pmen
t St
anda
rds
- St
age
One
1s
t Apr
il 20
04
to 30
th Ap
ril 2
006
C £ £ 5 3 3-I Q
cTO o• i i1 1 x E
c — 0
■— TO> a
> +- T3 co 0 CD Ek. .!= 0 (0 £ 9 E
"O c O 0
CD E >- .!= 0) 0 a a
. 5
C0)0(0HI
\
ICNI-eCO
Q_
h -LOCDzLD<4—o0■4—>c0E0
'dc0s—
0
CD C ’•+-> 0 0 EoCO c
o0 -3 4- Oa 0 9 "o 0 ^
§ 21 | LD £
\
\
S
\
\
\
0■00>0
x~oc00
o0
0X
cQ .
£o o4-< COoQ) 0 0 £ W O}x g> OJ £0 0
%
0
\
\
0CO
•4—>coai _0_ooo
0-4-4’cH—0
■00>0
X
o . . 0
f i iasg E - ©o £ 0 14—E £ cd 0 c *0> .§ oo nj
LL E
0C
' 00)|ro
•4-4001—co010-4—100C/3
s
\
s
\
\ s
\
\
\
0c0)c
'n0•4—> 0
-4—>C0>01—CLo
0000O0c0I—0
x
0Co
00a- c tr o 0» §
_ 0 Q l
■S'S1 8< 0
s
\
\
s
■coCLCL00>0>
-4—1o0o
4—>
_0 X 00i—00i—0 0 0
4—I 0
o > 4 -4—>>
0 ’-4-41X O
0'00 CD0 CO ' i —O D0 X0 O___ 00 1—1— O
TDC
>—
0 ' 0I X-4-4
\
0
i f■4-4 ^0 o 0 ~ 0
g Il§|>o= '5 m0 5d) 0
S 0 o
O ) 4 -4
_0 X0 t— f—® -- 0 > X £o 0 E E l .9-^ 0 O' C 0 Cl) 0 ^"O ^ ^0 I C 0 - 0 £ -§ $ w E E >>E ^ o 0 > .-£> 0 -0 o3
»-® S-X Q. CD 0 Z3 C > _
O m (U cI—w
Figu
re
6.3:
Stre
ngth
Tr
aini
ng
Equi
pmen
t ex
cerp
t fro
m dr
aft
for
deve
lopm
ent
The draft for development was prepared and approved in the knowledge that
there would be limitations on the requirements which could be endorsed for
insertion into the document. Detailed quantitative design information was
lacking in certain areas due to voids in knowledge about exact user
requirements and the most effective ways of satisfying user needs. Further
research and investigation would ultimately be performed to fill these knowledge
gaps. Consequently, the draft for development tended towards being descriptive
and informative rather than overly prescriptive. Excerpts from the draft for
development illustrating this narrative approach are presented in Figure 6.4.
Also omitted from the draft for development were criteria demanding lead-in
times in excess of two or three months. Although inclusive design normally
requires consideration of user needs at the start of product development
(Keates and Clarkson, 2003a), the standard was intentionally set to allow
‘retrofitting’ of solutions to products already in existence to reflect commercial
sensitivities. Enabling all participating equipment supplier design staff to utilise
the draft for development, regardless of their current position within product
design lifecycles, was important for equity and educational reasons. Integral
accessibility would however be increasingly demanded as the draft for
development matured into the full inclusive design standard. A combination of
‘essential’ and ‘desirable’ criteria were included in the draft for development, as
illustrated in Figure 6.4, the latter giving forewarning of likely future inclusions in
the standard, effectively extending the implementation time available for these
requirements.
117
<DC
O0)0)C0
0) -2 o > CO CNJ
(0 "D
CO• «cCOCO0)£• MBLL0)>CO3Oc
CO"OcaCO
a<£OCOO
c0)E
o oCM
f r
LUCO T -co0
i ) | '£ Ss i-I Q
c03 (D.E E
I t
c — a
H 0 ■-~ <0 > a.
\ \ \
\ S
\ \
c1_ o ® £ Eo O ■—
& E
\
coa ED. £a o *3 m _
Erea
O)C>oEC/3
a)_Q
00"O
0_Q
03_C'0COo0-CH—»"OCCO
-I—* 0 _Q03C‘cc0I—0S.c00
re'-0c000LU
03C1—coE0>a_c
-j—'0b
ECO
-t—* 0co0
. 00G3|C
’(/3
O-Xo0O
■a00o.w■eCO ■*—> 0
-£ZCLE
E0ExCO
■000CL|0
s
\
\
\
0s.M—Os03C0
0sT3i_S-4—»0c0E0Ec CD
E •cCO
CO 0 -10M—N -
T3 LO0303-0 z> LU0CL 0
CL0
0CO <L_■0cCOs
Q)O
‘ECOc
00
0 03-1—< r0c ‘c0 COLL I—-4—>
co
0V—o■0s_CO0o>0
S
\
0
CO0ocCOEi—ot0CL
*0o
S iCO
oCOJO"000M—1600>
\
00O
4=0003C‘c‘cos_
0
03c00s
0 CD2 E >(0 0 p i 0Q _ I ©CL I o © n . g ro 10^ y CO
^ w © § - roO o. in
\ \
%
\
s
\
\
co
l . i 0 0re £ a ° o -o— s_0 oCL Oo =0 j*: >■>O O c 0 03
C 0 EQ.'0 aj o- o ® 0
5 go © 0 E* 0 0 3 E0 0
0 E 0
oCLo >0 >so c 0 03i_0 E 0■00 — o m Q-g o
■0 0 C 0 CO ,c£ 0_0 T30 c6
Lear
ning
Dis
abili
ty
\
Hea
ring
Imp
airm
ent
Vis
ual
Imp
airm
ent
\
Low
erB
ody
Imp
airm
ent
Upp
erB
ody
Impa
irm
ent
Des
irab
le
Audit
ory
feed
back
ab
out
perfo
rman
ce
at the
sta
rt an
d en
d of
the
wor
kout
Low
leve
l step
on
and
off
Figu
re
6.4:
Tre
adm
ills
exce
rpt
from
draf
t fo
r de
velo
pmen
t ill
ustra
ting
‘ess
entia
l’ an
d ‘d
esir
able
’ crit
eria
Although not without expected shortcomings, the draft for development
represented an important first step towards inclusive design guidance
specifically for the fitness equipment industry. Drafts for development offer an
opportunity for users to feed back information as part of a process of continuous
improvement of any given standard (BSI, 2005d). Reinforcing the iterative
nature of standards development, this initial document was crucial for informing
the development and future content of the inclusive design standard. Critiques
on practical execution of the draft for development were sought from equipment
supplier design staff through the focus group sessions described in Chapter
Five. Constructive criticism, technical contributions and direct questioning of
supplier representatives over subject matter all fed into the developing
standard’s content, as did tacit knowledge accrued by the author at these
sessions. Gym users’ and fitness instructors’ opinions on products in the
marketplace, which met the draft for development requirements, were gathered
through telephone and email communications directed via the IFI office. This
feedback on the implementation of the draft for development allowed pertinent
information to be incorporated within the ensuing inclusive design standard. The
ongoing progression from draft for development to fully published consortium
standard is described below.
6.2.3.3 Iterative Development of Content
As outlined in Chapter Four, the main data forming the inclusive design
standard, intended to replace the draft for development, was obtained from
analysis of user feedback from practical equipment testing sessions. Standards
often have multiple parts, sections or sub-sections to facilitate ease of reference
and use (BSI, 2000). Following this precedent the fitness equipment safety
standard BS EN 957 (BSI, 1997a) presents a generic Part 1, applicable to all
products, followed by seven equipment-specific Parts. An early decision was
taken to align the format and structure of the inclusive design standard to that of
BS EN 957, offering familiarity to product designers and the equipment expert
panel alike. This commonality of approach would support cross-referencing of
requirements, development of consistent terminology and would strengthen any
119
future alliance between the two standards. During data analysis, therefore,
qualitative user feedback from the practical equipment testing sessions was
collated into generic product categories reflecting those of BS EN 957 (see
Chapter Four). Consequently the inclusive design standard would offer the
following ten Parts, with individual Part numbers and titles matched faithfully to
the designations of BS EN 957 wherever possible:
Part 1 - General Requirements
Part 2 - Strength Training Equipment
Part 3 - Free Weight Equipment (Weight Benches, Racks,
Barbells and Dumbbells)
Part 4 - Consoles
Part 5 - Cycles
Part 5A - Upper Body Ergometers
Part 6 - Treadmills
Part 7 - Rowing Equipment
Part 8 - Steppers, Stairclimbers and Climbers
Part 9 - Elliptical and Crosstrainers
Presentation of accumulated user feedback by generic product categories, and
all prior data analysis, was completed solely by the author. In the first instance
information was collected, coded and sorted with no acceptance or rejection of
criteria. Once all data were recorded discretion was used, based on the author’s
industrial experience, to remove highly inappropriate criteria. Discarded
information typically related to requests far beyond current technological
capabilities or the reasonable financial resources of equipment supplier
organisations. With this first filter applied the documentation represented the
earliest and original working draft of the inclusive design standard. A small
excerpt for treadmills is shown in Figure 6.5.
120
Session / Equipment
ID
Tester ID & Impairment Category
Comments
2 / 1 6 747Cerebral Palsy
Step could be added at side to step onto and off using hand rail to balance
2/ 41 749Cerebral Palsy
Be good with extra long side handles for extra balance
3 /1 1312 Multiple Sclerosis
Safety rail and hand grips very good for confidence
5 / 3 4 1347Dwarfism
It could do with a lower grab bar
3/ 41 735Multiple Sclerosis
Could not set slow enough for my needs
3/ 41 1314Non-disabled
Same display as the other machines good for simplicity/continuity
1 /17 470Visual Impairment
Need simpler start up procedures on technology accessible for visually impaired people
4 / 38 751Visual Impairment
Touch screen so no good
3 /2 729Visual Impairment
Raised buttons particularly for the speed and gradient would be important for independent use
3 / 17 751Visual Impairment
Different sounds for different buttons on display would begood
2/ 41 750Visual Impairment
Controls were very good because of different shapes
3 /1 1309 Learning Disability
Picture symbols use i.e. tortoise
3 / 17 1311 Multiple Sclerosis
Unable to press buttons needed quite a bit of force
5 / 26 1463 Visual Impairment
Due to size of fonts it is difficult to access programmes
5 / 26 3489Non-disabled
Instructions/warning info extremely small!!
5 / 34 3489Deaf/Blind
Emergency stop button needs to be larger
5 / 26 4796 Multiple Sclerosis
[Good stop button] within easy reach (if you’re right handed)
3 / 29 4784Hearing Impairment
Very good but I don’t feel safe in it because if I fall back there is no wire attached to me for emergency stop
3 /1 729Visual Impairment
Good safety features, white moving logo good - indicates treadmill is working - perhaps horizontal white lines would
be added to this3 / 17 729
Visual ImpairmentWhite logos helped identify when treadmill working but
black colour makes edges difficult to see2 / 16 729
Visual ImpairmentContrasting colour between the belt and sides would be
beneficial-even a white or yellow line along the edge5 / 26 4796
Multiple SclerosisVery good that they provided Braille manual
Figure 6.5: Example of accumulated and filtered user feedback for the
treadmill generic product category
The full text of the draft for development was incorporated into the
documentation alongside the filtered qualitative user feedback. Forming the
foundation for all subsequent drafts of the inclusive design standard, this
manuscript was then submitted for consideration by the equipment expert
121
panel. Assessments, commentary and judgments on the draft were made
through deliberations at equipment expert panel meetings, where a line-by-line
analysis accepted or rejected each individual criterion outright, or referred it for
modification or further research. Details of the decision-making processes and
prioritisation strategies utilised in making these judgements are discussed in
detail in section 6.2.3.6 below. Following each meeting the working manuscript
was amended to reflect all agreed changes and the script resubmitted to the
subsequent meeting for approval. The evolving standard remained a
confidential, internal document, with relevant segments only released for
external comment where necessary.
Keeping the needs of disabled people at the core of the inclusive design
standard was an overarching priority for the equipment expert panel.
Maintaining a positive focus on functional ability was considered vital, therefore
a large number of the requirements were rewritten to be presented in terms of
product specifications and not personal abilities. This approach offers natural
parity with the intention of standards to set out clear performance objectives
which focus on the product and not on the abilities of its user (BSI, undated a;
BSI, 2005f). To illustrate, a tester with muscular dystrophy offered the following
feedback on accessing a piece of upper body strength equipment:
"With a battery wheelchair; the wheelchair prevented me getting
far enough back. ”
(Tester, Muscular Dystrophy)
The equipment expert panel took the polar view that it was in fact the design of
the fitness equipment, not the battery on the wheelchair, which was impeding
this user’s access. In order to address the issue raised by this user’s statement,
the requirements shown in Figure 6.6 were incorporated into the final inclusive
design standard.
122
0 K> 0
Uiro 0■ 4—'4-»■ wmmC/)c
1if) "DX k.0 0c ~D■4-* CLL 0
4-*0 CO> 4-*(/) c3 0
EO Q.c ■■i3U“
LU
t -
(A00
if)CN
Q.D0CO■Oc00</)0Oo<
*“ no .2o " O o
<u>
to■DCCO4-4
( f )
<D
O- o<D Z O'
>>c/)CO0
0i_04—L_04-»c-t—>oc
"coJO 0 4—<c0EQ.0CJ00
O0 -♦—* i—0Q."co0
-t—>O3i_ -»—> 0 i_ 0
0c00E0i_
4—0
c0EQ.*0cr00
Eo
000i_CD0i_oo4-4co000oo0■0c0s—0
0_QE=3C
E0Ex0E0
Eo
00000oo0CDc0
JO4—o_0_Q0Q.0O0-Q"co_C0 4—>c0EQ.0cr0
co
-I—» 0 c
oo0 c 0
4—>c0E0>OE
c0 EQ.0 cr 0
o 00 3c E0 o
E 0=5 0
E ©C CD
c 000
00 c 0-b I-
000_003C0.co0oi_CLCl0
13cr0
0 _c 0 4—<c0EQ.0cr00
000OO0
0O
0000
"Oc0000OO<
04—0C0
h-□_
"DO_Dv_0Q.Q.0"co
00C0
0JO
0000
0000
C0
0Q.
_0JO00>
CO0
0Q_4-4c0>_000
000>00
0O4—
'o0Cl000_0CZ>
0 ^ CO •—4-4 — _ C"\
0E000>Oi_Q.00000O
c0EQ.0cr000‘o0X0
_Q00
0JO
Eoi—
4—
00'o0X0O4-4
01—000
0Q.
000
JO4-400E
4-4c0EQ.'0cr00
00c0E0
0
0 0 0 0 > > O OE E~0 ~0
0000
4—00
_0_Q00>O
0o'
0 «♦—»00CO
COc\i
OQ
0 o0n Q.4—O
4—
0 ^ 0 _L_ -----0 O
0C0o0 3
0JO4-4
Eo
0_Qto0E00i—0CDC
■00>oE~00
0>00i_0000EEE
LO
0 3
0_C0
0>o
JO00co
© £ £ o 00oco
0oc00_0o
'Tfc\i
co
4-40oQ.00Oi_0X00
4—000C0_0004—>00Q.O00
000j_
0JOo00
0
0
COOOCNJ>40
CNJco
'4—'0LU
Figu
re
6.6:
Acc
ess
and
Set
Up
I Sea
ts
exce
rpt
from
incl
usiv
e de
sign
st
anda
rd
show
ing
prod
uct
requ
irem
ents
to
enab
le
whe
elch
air
acce
ss
In order to provide clear, unambiguous design requirements, the inclusive
design standard aimed to be more definitive, quantitative and precise than the
draft for development or qualitative user feedback alone. Removing
unnecessary subjectivity would also aid compliance, objectively ensuring that
comparable products passed conformity testing. It is not unusual for a standard
to be drafted by a small panel or individual expert using existing standards or
data from various sources as appropriate (BSI, 2000). Alternative sources of
data were therefore sought to strengthen the content of the standard and,
where necessary, to satisfy gaps in knowledge as reviewed below.
6.2.3.4 Utilising Existing Data Sources
According to BSI (1997b, pg 27), “a standards body seeks to codify existing
knowledge, not to establish new facts”. Whilst the accuracy of this statement
with regard to original information may be questioned, the use of existing
knowledge is commendable. Data obtained from authoritative sources can
increase the validity of a standard, thus such information was utilised wherever
possible to populate the developing inclusive design standard. As well as being
time-efficient, this approach ensured the detailed content of the standard
reflected best practice at the time of writing. Pre-existing inclusive design
information was considered as a priority wherever it was available. As an
example, the ‘Sign Design Guide: A guide to inclusive signage’ (Barker and
Fraser, 2000) suggests a minimum embossed character height of 15mm on
building signage which is intended to be read using touch by individuals with
very limited or no vision. This advice directly informed the minimum
requirements stipulated for the height of tactile weight stack numbering to be
implemented on strength equipment to identify available weight increments.
Research also focused on alternative industries who had specifically considered
the incorporation of people with impairments. A review of architectural
standards proved beneficial, with ‘BS 8300: Design of buildings and their
approaches to meet the needs of disabled people’ (BSI, 2001) offering
particularly pertinent information. Impairment-specific literature, more often than
not produced by national disability organisations, was additionally consulted.
124
Mencap’s guide to writing accessibly for people with learning difficulties, ‘Am I
Making Myself Clear?’ (2002), and the Royal National Institute for the Blind’s
advice on producing literature for those with visual impairments, ‘See It Right’
(1999), were particularly valuable. It was distinctly noticeable that available
inclusive design information was heavily biased towards architecture and the
written word rather than physical products. This left areas in the inclusive design
standard for which explicit requirements remained absent. These voids were
subsequently filled through additional practical product testing.
6.2.3.5 Supplementary Practical Product Testing
There are times “when a committee may need to initiate or extend research in
its field in order to complete or strengthen a standard” (BSI, 1997b, pg 27).
Following assimilation of applicable design information from a range of existing
sources, there remained areas of the inclusive design standard for which no
constructive data was available. Supplementary practical product testing by
disabled people was thus chosen to provide empirical data to support the
standard. Practical testing of equipment was considered the most viable method
to facilitate problem solving and provide information specific to fitness products.
Additionally this method would ensure the content of the inclusive design
standard remained user-led. The research brief for testing prioritised areas
where the greatest deficits in knowledge existed and focused on the inclusion of
those users deemed most excluded by current fitness equipment design. The
needs of people with sensory impairments and individuals with limited hand
function and/or finger dexterity were particularly noted, due to the significant
amounts of adverse feedback emanating from these groups during initial
product testing. Developed in collaboration with the equipment expert panel, the
research brief targeted for further investigation the broad areas of: clear and
easy access onto equipment; ease of use of adjustment mechanisms,
particularly for unilateral use; simplicity of programming; and use of multi-
sensory information on user-product interfaces (incorporating auditory
feedback, tactile labelling and effective use of colour). Thirty individual test
scenarios were established and tests conducted to elicit equipment and
125
component specific information for direct integration into the standard’s
documentation. The photographs in Figure 6.7 illustrate two of these practical
test sessions. Figure 6.7(a) shows investigations into the effect of varying the
pin shape on the ease of selecting different weight adjustments on strength
equipment. Figure 6.7(b) demonstrates a test into the effectiveness of adding
raised tactile information to control consoles on cardiovascular equipment.
A questionnaire-based research approach analogous to that used in Chapter
Four was implemented to capture more detailed user needs. These latter
studies however, encompassed a more prescribed and explicit tester selection.
Individuals with maximum product usage and evaluation experience were
selected alongside a small number of 'new-to-product' testers. Testers were
also, importantly, matched by specific functional impairment to perform
particular tests. For example, 7 testers with limited finger dexterity, often
through the effects of arthritis or a stroke, tested the ease of selecting different
weight adjustments using various adjustment pin shapes (Figure 6.7(a)).
Likewise, a total of 23 blind, visually impaired or deaf/blind testers participated
in extensive tests evaluating the effectiveness of adding raised tactile
information to control consoles (Figure 6.7(b)). This procedure for tester
selection is comparable to the lead and critical user concepts defined by Von
Hippel (1986) and Keates and Clarkson (2003a) respectively. Lead users are
users whose present strong needs will become general in a marketplace
months or years in the future. Correspondingly, critical users represent the
borderline cases between being able and not being able to use a product. Such
individuals are believed to act as a good forecasting mechanism for future
product needs and can often highlight problematic areas and demonstrate novel
and innovative solutions.
126
W eight Selection Pin
(a) Ease of weight adjustment selection with varying weight pin shape
Figure 6.7: Examples of supplementary practical product testing by
disabled users
127
Tactile Control Console
(b) Effectiveness of adding raised tactile information to control consoles
Figure 6.7: Examples of supplementary practical product testing by
disabled users
128
Questionnaires were designed to encourage respondents to consider and
compare individual product components and state preferences when presented
with multiple options for achieving the same outcome. The test description and
questionnaire for assessing ease of weight adjustment selection with varying
weight pin shape (Figure 6.7(a)) is given, along with two completed surveys, as
an example in Appendix H. This increasingly specific and comparative testing
offered greater clarity on the optimal solutions preferred by testers in each area.
Significant findings from the practical testing were incorporated, as appropriate,
into the inclusive design standard documentation. As an example, the draft for
development offers the requirements shown in Figure 6.8 surrounding tactile
information on the main control consoles of cardiovascular fitness equipment.
Although the draft for development dictates the provision of either buttons which
are entirely raised or tactile iconography within the constraints of the button, no
quantitative information is supplied. As a direct result of the supplementary
practical testing, with a small amount of supporting information obtained from
existing data sources, the tactile information section of the inclusive design
standard was expanded as shown in Figure 6.9. This is indicative of the
expansion of requirements and provision of more detailed information between
the draft for development and the inclusive design standard. The latter is hence
seen to be more definitive, quantitative and precise, removing a large degree of
subjectivity compared to the draft for development (Baker, 2006).
129
Incl
usiv
e Fi
tnes
s In
itiat
ive
Fitn
ess
Equi
pmen
t St
anda
rds
- St
age
One
1s
t Apr
il 20
04
to 30
th Ap
ril 2
006
O)C =£ n 8.8
- i Q
cU) a)£ I i ' l
c _ a>IE~ CO> a
> +* O CDffi £>- ± CD CO5 2- q e
to c o CDa ECD COq. aS M
COcoCOCOLU
TOoC/5
'co
TOcCO
tooD)
_o
«00CO0Eco"0I—DOQ-
Q .0i_COocoacoo>
_QOTO0CO
'cocc
Q.o r;CO — -
0 co to cos—/ -4—•
2 8II£ o0 «-F 03 c 0o °-C0 ss o ^COc -o o 0o (Dc ° -f : co
cd -=
3 o -Q 0-a 50 0 co co2? «- 0o “-O —§ | CO o
± i TO"o.
TO D
TO0
TOTO00X!
CO
0
'coi -CD
0 TOO "Sr- co
coCO
to
C3o_C T= w 0 0 TO
•5,“e g>TO O CD 0CO0 0
o5
0 H>
■ wmtm 0D)0
+ -»
COC
1tn "Oif)<D 0C ■U
cLL 0
0 CO>CO c
3 0EO aC
— 3o r
LU
oton
~D<D©
LL©
O0
CD
**" no .2o * O o-C £1r_0 > -
re■ocre
4-4(O
0
O- o 0 z
oQO LU
h-LU>
oQ
ooCM
O)0
_c~o00're
0-os—O
_Q
0
03
E_0
O4—>coOc're
0■oi_o
DQ0
CD
resz
~o00
're0
_Q4-403Eco4—<
4—>3.0_0
O
0
_vu o
£o"reo-4—'
0Ore
s—s_30
T3C3Oi_CD
ore
_Q
0
0co1—oEoo
c 0 oE oCM
o ICD
re0jO■Qcre0Cos_oE
0JC"D00
're
3_Q
0
Core
3 ; 2E3E 5
£ © E £
0! _
34—>X0
4—<
0>4—<oc"0"UT500
‘reL _
re
JZClreCDocoo
T300
're0>re
03
E_0Os—4-4coOc're
05
ooos__0E3
Co13
_Q0
reT3cre4—>
0rec
T304—>C000
0
Co
T30
>Oi _
CL
0
CLM— "O
c
T30C're4-4coo
4-4X04-4
"O00
're
o01—0-*-4orere
JZo"O00
're
c0E0
'5cr0
_0 4-4o re4—>
_0 _Qre
■— 5-q 0
Eo
CLE0x001—re0T3reCL
0_x
>'0_3oc
reT3cre
-*—>
3o>.re
3ooocreocoreO)>rec4-4c03cr00_Q30
reo
0co
-CCL
_00
Eo
<4—
LOi _
0_QE3C
0-D4-403E0co
4-43
_Q
CoOc're
0
czo
T3003
01—
0
Ore1—re
szo
~ocre
CLrei —
CDOcoo
CDc'cre0E"Ocre0reClOi _
CLCLre
0_N0coo
E3E'c
Ere0>re
03E
_0o4-4coOc're
0
co
TD003
CLreCDOcoo
TD00
'req:
EEo
c0coOco4-44-43
DQ
CDc'cre0
CLre1—CDOcoo
"O00
'rea:
CLreCDOcoo
re0L .0>oT303
0N
CO
CMCD
COCD
J-CD"3-
CDOOCM>re
CMco
TDLU
Figu
re
6.9:
Con
sole
s ex
cerp
t fro
m in
clus
ive
desi
gn
stan
dard
ill
ustra
ting
tact
ile
icon
ogra
phy
requ
irem
ents
\ f
o5
(D H
+* O)ro <0
- - 00£ iCO "O(/) s-0 cuC “D« c11 R3
>+-»
0 CO
I I2 5
“ 3 O"
LU
OQ
0DE_0oi_
-»—' c o O c 0
cono00D
>4—'X0T>0CO
"0DC
"O0CO
’0CC
LOCD
■0
C00
0 0N
■O"0 0"C 0Cl 00 0O O0 0JZ JO4 —4
i—O
>4—
E JZ
E4—»03
LO C_0
4 —O c0 0N i—
00 4 —4
4 —4 OC 0O
4 —
1—0
EJZO
Z3 CME 1—
'c O
E0 >
-0COc
0 04 —4 JZJZ Q03•— JZ0JZ <ii—0
4 —4
4—»X0
4 —4
_0 K4 —4 4 —40 JZ0 03"0 0
E JZ
0 i_0
0 4 —44 —4
JZ4—»
_0
0N
CO
0>oJO0'3’CDNj-•*—>C0E0i_
Z3O’0DC000
Q.0L_O)OCoo
LU
_0 -4—'O0
-4-J
70O>0
o-4—»
_0 -4—»O0
-+—>
0JO-4—1ocT3Do
JZ0
0 3c_0
c0s_0
-i—>O0i_0
JZoCNJi—o
_0 -4—'O0I-
CDCD"st"
0 3
0JZt_0
-4—< 4—40
-4-400
"0E0
0
c0
co'0o4—coo
0NCD
0 3
0sz1—0
■4—< -4—>_0
700N
"0 4 —•
Q.0O00
0 _0
0
0 N0
■4—>Co
4 —
E oE:e c E o£ | -4—' —>
s= E'c E 0
EELO
0N0
70c0
OQO LU
0si0
-4—'
_0O0Coo0
JZ-4—>
co_0o
-4—>cooc'0
0j z-4—>
co7001—
oO’0i —
0co
-4—> 0E1—o
4—c7000
'0J—
0I—0
ooi—0ED
0coi—oEoo
00;o70c0
0coi—oEooCNJ
0 3
'0_c■000
'0s_
EoE'cE00-Q
0 3
’0X7000’0OC
r--CD
E0E
’c
0 EC 4 —
0T 3 1—
0 04 —4 4 —4
C 00 00 ■001— cCL
04—
4 —44 —4 0c0 0
4 —4
E _00i— JO
— 0Z3 4—4
O’0 5
0QC
00
n o
c0
E 4 —4
0 0i— 0
4 — >%4-4
Q ._ 0
E 1—
0 04 —4
X 00
00 01—
0 00
0
no0
L—O
Cl 0> . c0 0sc JZ
s--- Cl0 0> —
00 4 —4
On o
O L_C 0
n o
03 c0
O 4 —4
4 —4 0
LOs—0
JOE3c0_c
-4-4
co700;o>oL -CL00co1—oEoo>"00T370c00coI—oEooCNJ
LUI-
0_Q
■Oc0
_ 0
o0coo0
3o o oc0 oco
-4—4 0 0 3
> 0 c
c0 D O’ 0 0
JDo 0.0 3 JC
0 .E
70 >0 c 0 c'0 2
■O0 ’4—»00 30
0i_0
-4—40 E
c ©— JO 0
'500
>4—o-O c0_ 0
JD0 i_o ~o6 0 oQ .I—13 Q .
0X!■4—40oEco
-4—• 0E1—o
4—c■O00'0i—>.c<
00oQ .1—o
CL
LU>
ooJ =00
■00■O■O00JOo
-4—4
00'0i—QQ
_ 0
'0s_
CD0
JO4-4oc-jODo
JZ0>
JZCL0I—0 3ocoo■O00’0i—0
COCD
_ 0
’0I—
CQ
0 3
CD
CL0!—0 3OCoono00’0
0
000 3C_o00
JO
CDOOCNJ>.0CNJc.04—'
LU
Figu
re
6.9
(con
t.):
Cons
oles
ex
cerp
t fro
m in
clus
ive
desig
n st
anda
rd
illus
tratin
g ta
ctile
ic
onog
raph
y re
quire
men
ts
6.2.3.6 Conflict Resolution Strategies
Overall, the approach of collating existing design data from authoritative
sources supplemented with practical product testing, was effective in providing
constructive content for the inclusive design standard. Occasionally,
comparison of seemingly like information from different data sources highlighted
inconsistencies, as did attempts to simultaneously service the requirements of
all stakeholders. Conflicts were apparent both within and across stakeholder
groups. Users with physical impairments, for example, typically requested
multiple adjustments be available on equipment to allow for a variety of body
shapes and ranges of movement. Conversely, users with cognitive impairments
often wanted equipment without any adjustment mechanisms, making products
more simple and straightforward to use. This situation was further complicated
by the fact that impairments do not necessarily occur in isolation. Mencap
(2003) for example, indicates that learning difficulties are frequently
accompanied by physical impairments, whilst Badley and Tennant (1997) report
that there is a likely incidence of sensory impairment occurring in combination
with other physical disabilities. Multiple impairments are also common amongst
the aging population where combined vision and hearing loss is not unusual
(Age Concern, 2008). The compound effects of several impairments which
suggest contradicting product design requirements could therefore be apparent
not only across different users, but also within any one individual. Further
conflicts were additionally evident across different stakeholder groups. Major
tensions between user and supplier groups centred on the provision of
increased product functionality against the technological challenges and
associated costs involved in delivery. A significant number of visually impaired
users requested the addition of extensive auditory feedback to cardiovascular
equipment to assist with independent use and programming. Current embedded
hardware in these products proved unable to provide appropriate auditory
outputs, with extensive hardware and software upgrades required to remedy
this situation. Incurring significant expense and long lead-in times to develop,
the addition of extensive auditory feedback was unlikely to be commercially
viable to supplier organisations in the short term. Although desirable from a user
perspective to demand high levels of auditory feedback within the standard, it
133
was obvious that concessions would have to be made on the content of the
inclusive design standard surrounding this issue.
The equipment expert panel assumed responsibility for balancing all
incongruent requirements, acting as an independent third party conciliation
service between competing stakeholders. Using all available data to inform their
decisions, autonomy was given to the panel to make a final decision on the
technical content of the inclusive design standard. To arbitrate requirements,
and ensure benefits bestowed to one stakeholder group were not to the
unreasonable detriment of another, the equipment expert panel implemented
the prioritisation hierarchy summarised in Table 6.2. For inclusion in the
standard any design requirement had to compare favourably with the hierarchy.
In the case of two or more competing requirements being apparent, this
hierarchical arrangement was used to determine which, if any, should take
precedence for insertion into the manuscript.
Unsurprisingly, health and safety issues formed the prime concern in the
prioritisation hierarchy. Standards need to provide for levels of safety that will
give protection from harm, and in the course of preparing a draft standard
inclusion of provisions relating to health and safety should always be
considered (BSI, 1997b). Any design requirement that had the potential to make
a product fundamentally unsafe was rejected outright from incorporation within
the inclusive design standard, whereas conversely, requirements which would
make products safer were prioritised for inclusion. Design modifications were
also discarded if they would contravene the safety specifications for fitness
equipment set out within BS EN 957 (BSI, all dates), as requested by supplier
representatives during the focus group sessions. To manage risk and minimise
hazards wherever possible, compliance with BS EN 957 was set as an explicit
prerequisite to meeting the inclusive design standard. Requiring compliance
with BS EN 957 permitted the inclusive design standard to incorporate safety
requirements whilst maintaining its integrity and purpose as a standard primarily
focused on accessibility and inclusion.
134
Following on from health and safety issues in the prioritisation hierarchy were
deliberations on commercial viability and the practical achievability of the design
requirement. As explicitly requested by representatives attending focus group
sessions, cognisance was taken of restrictions on cost, technological
capabilities and anticipated timescales. Accurate cost assessments and
information on current product features were sought from supplier design staff
via focus group sessions when required. Inclusive design criteria efficient in the
use of materials and human resources were preferred for inclusion within the
standard. To control variety and minimise costs, standard dimensions were
selected wherever possible.
Table 6.2: Prioritisation hierarchy used to resolve conflicting
stakeholder requirements
Priority Issue Considerations...
1 Health & Safety / Risk Management
• User health and safety, including appropriateness of the exercise to be performed
• Based on risk assessment of making and/or not making design changes
• Avoidance of conflict with existing and established access or safety requirements (particularly BS 8300 and BS EN 957)
2 Commercial Viability
• Likely practical achievability• Implementation cost and market share influence• Resource allocation - materials, human resources
etc• Manufacturing and technology limitations• Ease of change implementation• Expected lead-in time
3 Level of Inclusivity
• Potential impact / anticipated level of inclusion of disabled users - referring to user epidemiology and demography as appropriate
• Frequency of incidence / severity of design exclusion reported by disabled people during practical testing
• Bias towards including most excluded user groups• Detrimental impact of change on alternative user
groups• Alliance with ‘inclusive design’ rather than ‘design for
disability’ approaches
4 Availability of Design Data
• Quality, reliability and consistency of data sources• Preference for established, authoritative sources and
quantified requirements• Practical or observational experience to support
potential success of making design change
5 Test Methods for Compliance
• Test methods achievable with minimum expense and specialist equipment
• In-house testing possible (to avoid external test house costs)
135
Anticipated level of inclusion was considered next in the prioritisation hierarchy
to counter purely commercially-based considerations. An indicative assessment
was made of the impact and success of any proposed criteria with regard to its
ability to include a wider range of users. A degree of certainty that a
requirement would include more users had to exist for any criteria to be
incorporated into the inclusive design standard. Confidence in the outcome of a
design change was judged by the equipment expert panel based either on their
professional experience or specific user observations at practical testing
sessions. Requirements that maximised inclusion were typically retained within
the design standard, particularly if they offered a positive impact across multiple
impairment groups. Another key concern was the severity of design exclusion
currently experienced by certain user groups. The requirement for a removable
seat to allow wheelchair access to upper body strength equipment was inserted
into the design standard on this basis. Without removable seats such products
are rendered totally unusable from a wheelchair and any subsequent design
changes made to accommodate wheelchair users would be futile. Although
wheelchair users represent less than 5% of the total disability population
(Health Education Authority, 1997), the high level of design exclusion
encountered compelled the inclusion of this relatively impairment-specific
requirement. The removal of equipment-related barriers to participation in
physical activity was actively pursued for certain user groups. Research
conducted in association with the IFI suggests that people with sensory
impairments attend gyms with the lowest frequency compared to other
impairment groups (Sutton, 2004). A strong emphasis was thus placed on the
needs of visual and hearing impaired individuals to encourage and facilitate
their increased participation. Requirements surrounding provision of raised
tactile information, use of colour and appropriate text sizes therefore feature
prominently within the standard. In considering the needs of those with
impairments, care was equally taken to limit the detrimental impact of any
proposed design changes compared to current product usage. A focus on
inclusive design rather than design for disability was maintained, with the needs
of a range of disabled and non-disabled people catered for throughout the
content of the standard.
136
The penultimate area for consideration in the prioritisation hierarchy was the
availability of design data. In response to equipment supplier design staff
requests for a definitive standard with limited subjectivity, precise dimensional
and other quantitative information was included where it could be reliably
sourced. Where differing sources offered conflicting advice on a particular
aspect of design, precedence was given to the source judged most authoritative
and trustworthy. Confidence was generally placed in existing British or
European standards and publications by national disability organisations that
were recognised as experts in their field. Information specific to fitness
equipment, although very limited, was also considered favourably. In the
absence of any applicable design information, it remained necessary in some
areas of the standard for content to be completed by conjecture on the part of
the equipment expert panel. In cases of dispute, the professional opinion and
technical expertise of the most relevant panel member was normally
acknowledged. Only a small number of areas were completely dismissed from
the standard due to a lack of sufficient or reliable design data. Most notably, the
widespread provision of auditory feedback on products was negated in part due
to a shortage of information. Auditory requirements were targeted for future
integration into the standard, during a periodic review, once a more
comprehensive programme of research could be conducted in this specific
area.
Consideration of test methods for compliance was the concluding area in the
prioritisation hierarchy. Knowing how to test and ensuring that like products
pass such tests is important to verify conformity of products against
specifications (BSI, 2005d). Every criterion within the inclusive design standard
was therefore prescribed an associated test method through which conformity
could be asserted. To minimise costs, all selected test methods for design
criteria were chosen to be self-administered without the need for expensive,
specialist measuring instrumentation. In order to verify this, and to ensure that
methods were not specified in the standard without having been first tried out in
practice (BSI, 2005f), the author and a colleague from the equipment expert
panel performed trial runs of each assigned conformity test.
137
Application of the prioritisation hierarchy outlined in Table 6.2 was complex,
requiring extensive discourse and debate amongst equipment expert panel
members. Discussions centred on the principal question of “what is a
reasonable adjustment?” - an approach based firmly on the legislative wording
utilised within the Disability Discrimination Act (HMSO, 1995; TSO 2005). The
need to ensure that no one stakeholder group benefited from an intervention at
the unfair expense of another was the primary concern in answering this key
question. As well as applying collective knowledge and experience the
equipment expert panel frequently used cognitive walkthrough techniques
during discussion meetings to aid understanding. Cognitive walkthrough offers a
style of expert review which heavily utilises ‘user-scenarios’ and attempts to
view navigation of products through the eyes of the user (Allen, 2002).
Comparison tests between competing fitness products and between previous
designs and new designs were also repeatedly employed to aid decision
making and ensure appropriate parity across stakeholder groups.
6.2.3.7 Achieving Consensus on the Draft Manuscript
Standardisation relies on consensus (BSI, 1997c). Numerous iterations of the
manuscript and a succession of meetings were required before consensus was
reached by the equipment expert panel on the content of the inclusive design
standard. According to BSI (2005b) and ISO/IEC (2004) consensus need not
imply unanimity and may be defined as a:
“general agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained
opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the
concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take
into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any
conflicting arguments. ”
(BSI, 2005b, pg 3)
Under this description partial consensus is acceptable. From this perspective
the solution to the particular problem being considered “is therefore that judged
138
by the majority to be the most favourable for application at that specific time”
(ISO, 2003d, pg 1). Hence in circumstances where agreement amongst the
equipment expert panel was not forthcoming through dialogue alone, the
decision to progress each design requirement was taken by vote. All panel
members were assigned an equally-weighted vote with a majority rule invoked
when a unanimous consensus could not be reached.
In order to attain an acceptable standard it was inevitable that compromises
were implemented by the equipment expert panel to amalgamate the diverse
priorities and needs of all stakeholder groups. The major concession
surrounded the true level of ‘inclusion’ achieved. Not all items of fitness
equipment can, or will, be completely accessible to every person who has an
impairment. Even with products designed to meet the inclusive design standard
there will be users who will continue to experience barriers to access. The
success of the standard was thus considered to be in pushing mainstream
product design boundaries to accommodate an increased range of users. This
important aspect of the standard’s development is discussed at length in
Chapter Eight.
Alongside choices on subject matter, the equipment expert panel’s task of
agreeing exact wording and language usage proved to be equally vital to
achieving consensus. Although complicated and time-consuming, the consistent
use of clearly defined and widely understood terminology was important in
accurately conveying information. Subtle changes in punctuation or phrasing
could shift emphasis onto a different aspect of a requirement in the standard or
even change its meaning completely. Wording was favoured which avoided
ambiguity and misinterpretation of intent, but that additionally facilitated multiple
design options and the development of novel or unique solutions.
Conventionally, a standard should be written in such a way that its provisions
can be undertaken, and compliance shown, by its intended readers, who are
typically manufacturers and suppliers rather than product end-users (BSI,
2005f). Occasionally, it was judged vital for consensus that information
concerning the actions of fitness equipment end-users be incorporated into the
inclusive design standard. In these cases criteria were presented in the form of
139
“information to be supplied to the user” in order to be cognisant of equipment
supplier needs. An example is the following requirement: “removable benches
that are not fixed to the equipment must have a visual reference to ensure the
correct bench alignment and position of the user when performing the primary
exercise”. This specification assists users to relocate the bench correctly aiding
safe performance of the exercise. Conformity with the requirement however, is
retained within the control of the equipment supplier design staff applying the
standard. On occasion the phrasing ‘shall be avoided’ was utilised in order to
acknowledge that not all inclusive design requirements could be enforceable
through the standard. In these cases the standard became more informative
rather than prescriptive. A prime example concerns location of adjustments to
avoid left or right hand bias. Congregating multiple adjustments centrally could
cause confusion and leave insufficient space to access individual mechanisms
on some products. Thus the design requirement in the standard pertaining to
position of adjustments was set to read: “Left or right hand bias of adjustments
shall be avoided when setting up the equipment. Adjustments shall be centrally
located or duplicated to avoid bias.” BSI (2005f) suggest the subtle difference
between “shall” and “should” terminology could also be used to achieve the
same effect; “shall” indicates provisions which are mandatory whilst “should” is
used to indicate that a provision is not mandatory but is recommended as good
practice.
Successive working drafts of the inclusive design standard were reviewed by
the equipment expert panel until, through compromise and carefully considered
wording, consensus was reached. It was regarded that at this stage of
development, the most appropriate technical content to balance and satisfy
competing stakeholder needs had been achieved within the standard.
Consequently the manuscript was sanctioned for circulation to participating
stakeholders and other interested parties for a period of public comment.
140
6.2.4 Phase 4: Public Comment Period
It is expected that following the creation and approval of a document by a small
panel or individual expert the draft is offered to the public for review and
comment (CSA, undated). A public comment period enables a broader
audience to view the document, ensuring transparency and acceptability of the
resulting standard (BSI, 2005c). This stage in the development of a standard
hence provides for due process by considering all views and allowing appeals
(ASTM, undated b). In the case of drafts for development this enquiry stage
may be omitted, but it is an obligatory stage of consensus-building for consortia
standards (BSI, 2005b). Notably for consortia standards, public consultation
affords a clear opportunity for stakeholders to verify that a particular standard is
responsive to market requirements and is appropriate to their needs.
The inclusive design standard was released for a formal three-month public
comment period from 1st October 2005 to 1st January 2006. All equipment
supplier representatives participating in focus group sessions received a copy of
the manuscript, as did 24 different disability organisations who had either
helped with tester recruitment for the practical testing sessions or who had
explicitly expressed an interest in assisting with development of the standard.
Besides these organisational representatives, 15 disabled people with a range
of impairments received copies of the standard. These individuals were
selected to share in the consultation process based on their previous
participation in practical testing sessions and/or their relevant knowledge and
expertise. Focus group session number 7, held on 5th December 2005, was
specifically dedicated to discussions on the content of the draft with designers
and other non-design related organisational representatives. All additional
parties were invited to comment on the drafted inclusive design standard though
email or telephone communication with the author or indirectly and
anonymously via the IFI office.
The public comment period successfully achieved its aim of gathering
comments for the drafting committee and extending the standard’s consensus.
141
Six responses were received via email or telephone outside of the focus group
session, but undoubtedly the majority of feedback came from the equipment
supplier event. Upon closure of the consultation period, all responses were
collated and submitted to the equipment expert panel for consideration, to
inform further decision-making and voting preferences by this committee.
Examples of typical feedback and subsequent changes to requirements include:
Colour Contrast
Proposed Requirement for Colour Contrast - Seats:
“Colour contrast should be applied to all of the front edge of the seating surface.
Where there is a backrest a portion of (a minimum of 5%) of the surface should
utilise a primary contrast to the remainder of the seat.”
Product Designer Feedback:
“A two-tone seat is very expensive to do practically. It is only possible on
upholstered seats, not on moulded seats.”
Final Requirement for Colour Contrast - Seats:
“Seat upholstery shall have colour contrast with the frame. This may mean that
a number of combinations of coloured upholstery and frame will not be
permitted.”
Handles
Proposed Requirement for Seat Handle Proximity:
“Where fixed handles are fitted in proximity to the seat or bench they shall have
a minimum distance of 45mm and a maximum distance of 60mm measured
between the outside edge of the seat and the inside edge of the handle.”
Product Designer Feedback:
“Handles by seats do not always run parallel to the seat for their entire length.
They are often curved around towards the back of the seat where they are
attached to the main framework. Is there a specific length they need to be
between 45mm and 60mm?”
142
Final Requirement for Seat Handle Proximity:
“Where fixed handles are fitted in proximity to the seat or bench they shall have
a minimum distance of 45mm and a maximum distance of 60mm measured
between the outside edge of the seat and the inside edge of the handle for a
minimum of 150mm of the handle length.”
As well as facilitating feedback on the technical content of the standard, the
public comment period provided an opportunity to respond directly to concerns
expressed by consulted parties. Offering advice, interpreting requirements and
allaying fears at this stage undeniably assisted with a more rapid completion of
the final standard documentation. Alongside encouraging dialogue on technical
content, an added benefit of the public comment period was in promoting
awareness of the imminent release of the standard.
6.2.5 Phase 5: Approval
All feedback received from the public comment period was communicated with
the drafting panel for review during the approval phase. Stakeholder comments
on the inclusive design standard were presented to the equipment expert panel
to be assessed and, where necessary, sanctioned. Observations were
considered in turn and accepted or rejected for incorporation within the
standard, utilising the prioritisation hierarchy presented in Table 6.2 to aid
decision making when required. No substantial changes were necessary to the
inclusive design manuscript as a result of feedback from the public comment
period. For the most part stakeholder comments were accepted and
encompassed directly within the standard. As an example, the requirement for
colour contrast on seats was modified to include the option of single coloured
seats so long as they provided clear colour contrast with the surrounding
framework. This variation was made with the understanding that not all colour
combinations of framework and upholstery would be permitted to meet the
standard. The requirement for seat handle proximity was also modified in order
to clarify that the specified distance requirements should apply for a minimum of
143
150mm of the length of the handles. Any items of stakeholder feedback rejected
by the equipment expert panel at this stage were registered for consideration
during a future revision of the standard.
Once the equipment expert panel reached consensus on the content of the
standard, it remained only for an editorial assessment to be made prior to
publication. The final draft was inspected to ensure the text was clear,
unambiguous and presented in the correct style. Cross-referencing checks were
performed to ensure the provisions specified were not varied or undermined by
any subsequent text (BSI, 2005e). Consistent use of terminology and symbols
were additionally confirmed. Concluding practical trials were carried out by the
author, in collaboration with a member of the equipment expert panel, on three
different test products to validate the successful application of the standard.
Final approval and endorsement to publish was then sought, and obtained, from
the equipment expert panel. In the development processes practiced by
national and international standards bodies the standard is normally forwarded
at this stage to a parent committee for further consensus-building (ISO, 2003b).
In the case of the inclusive design standard no parent committee existed and
autonomy for publication therefore remained with the equipment expert panel.
6.2.6 Phase 6: Publication
Subsequent to receiving endorsement for publication the penultimate phase in
the standard’s development process was to formally issue the agreed text as a
standard (ISO, 2003b). Consisting of the ten Parts outlined in section 6.2.4.3,
the complete 110-page inclusive design standard was published under the title
‘Inclusive Fitness Initiative Equipment Standard - Stage Two’ (see Figure 6.10)
on 1st May 2006. Two complete sections of the standard, Part 1 - General
Requirements and Part 2 - Strength Equipment, are provided in Appendix I for
illustration. The latter may be specifically compared with both Figure 6.3 and
Appendix G to illustrate the increased breadth and complexity of requirements
from the draft for development to the inclusive design standard as a result of the
research. Initial dissemination of the inclusive design standard was limited
144
exclusively to those supplier organisations participating in focus group sessions,
after which it was made available as a free of charge download from the IFI
website (www.inclusivefitness.org). The standard remains in this location as a
public and openly available document which can be accessed by any interested
party.
■a r
T
Inclusive Fitness Initiative
Equipment Standards - Stage Two
i.Edition 2 May 2006
&------------ tmtrn*
t m b I
Figure 6.10: Inclusive Fitness Initiative Equipment Standard - Stage Two
(front cover)
Alongside issuance of the manuscript, the publication phase intended to
promote the standard through various channels to bring it to the attention of as
wide an audience as possible (BSI, 2000). The inclusive design standard was
publicised to the fitness industry through a series of four feature articles in
Health Club Management magazine (see Figure 6.11) in the August 2005,
December 2006, September 2007 and January 2008 editions. As an official
publication of the Fitness Industry Association, Health Club Management is a
leading periodical within the UK fitness industry having a circulation of
approximately 9,000 (The Leisure Media Company, 2006). Targeted
predominantly at club operators and fitness professionals, this publication is
widely read and utilised for advertising purposes by fitness equipment supplier
145
organisations. Announcements via this medium thus enabled those in the
fitness equipment supply industry and equipment purchasers to be
simultaneously informed of the inclusive design standard’s publication.
Promotion of the new standard was also made to the fitness industry via an item
in Recreation Magazine (Easton, 2005b), and outside of the industry in the
Inclusive Sport (EFDS, 2005), Forward (Spinal Injuries Association, 2006) and
DDA Leisure Directory (Baker, 2006) publications.
raising standardsNext month the Indusivc Fitness Initiative bunches its Stage Two Equipment Standards, raising the bar for suppliers and operators. Do you make the grade?
The world’s firstAdaptive Motion Trainer
M Freedom of■SpsEs 5' motion
Zero impact
Faster results
Maximumengagement
Figure 6.11: Awareness-raising article in Health Club Management
periodical (September 2007, pgs 48-50)
146
Promotion within industry press was supported by word of mouth marketing of
the inclusive design standard by members of the equipment expert panel and
fitness equipment supplier representatives, as well as the wider IFI team.
Unequivocally, however, the most extensive exposure for the standard was
through its direct implementation within the IFI’s equipment accreditation
process. This formal product endorsement scheme is recognised within the
industry to be the quality mark for inclusive fitness equipment provision. Since
1st October 2007 a significant element of achieving ‘IFI Accredited Item’ status
has been the mandatory compliance with all aspects of the published inclusive
design standard. The 17-month time lag between formal publication of the
standard and the date of enforcement within the IFI equipment accreditation
process was set to allow implementation time for equipment supplier design
staff. Recognition of the inclusive design standard within the IFI’s equipment
accreditation process not only provided direct practical application of the
research findings, it also proved highly influential in gaining wider recognition of
the standard. The adoption of the inclusive design standard by both European
and American national standards-setting bodies is discussed in Chapter Seven.
6.2.7 Phase 7: Review
Several factors may combine to render a standard out of date: technological
evolution, new methods and materials, new quality and safety requirements or
the development of original knowledge (ISO, 2003c). Standards thus need to be
maintained, which is represented in the concluding standard development
phase. The majority of standards undergo a process of periodic review to
warrant them up-to-date and technically valid. The outcome of this process is
normally confirmation, revision or withdrawal of a particular standard (ISO,
2003b). Although outside the remit of the current study, a five year periodic
review cycle is suggested by the author for each Part of the inclusive design
standard. As far as possible this programme should be synchronised to coincide
with the scheduled review of the corresponding Part of the BS EN 957 fitness
equipment safety standard (BSI, all dates). Reappraisals held in this format
147
would enable the inclusive design standard to reflect any modifications made to
the safety standard and avoid unintentional disparity between these two entities.
From a product design team perspective this parallel approach would also be
beneficial in only requiring a single iteration of design changes to comply with
amendments to either or both standards.
6.3 Conclusion
Adoption of a well-structured and recognised standard development process
was successful in formulating and issuing an inclusive design standard
specifically for the commercial fitness equipment industry. The definitive content
of the standard was achieved through operating under the formal 7-phase
process advocated by BSI (2005c) and summarised in Table 6.1. Furthermore,
adoption of this process enabled wide consensus to be achieved between
equipment supplier and disability organisations. Subsequent to the formation of
a multidisciplinary standards committee, an initial draft for development was
released to offer a timely response to industrial demands for inclusive design
guidance. This endeavour was based primarily on the professional knowledge
and expertise of the assembled equipment expert panel members. A more
authoritative version of the inclusive design standard evolved from this draft in
conjunction with a preparatory document comprising consolidated user needs
obtained through practical product testing. Successive drafts of the standard
encompassed equipment supplier design and organisational imperatives which
were identified through a series of focus group investigations. Information from
existing data sources and supplementary practical product testing data were
also used to augment the standard where necessary. The definitive content of
the standard was determined by the equipment expert panel, who developed
and implemented a prioritisation hierarchy to guide decision making and resolve
inevitable conflicts in stakeholder requirements. This proved to be an effective
strategy in enabling the committee to reach a satisfactory consensus. Wider
consensus-building was achieved through a public comment period, before
subsequent approval and publication of the final inclusive design standard by
148
the equipment expert panel. Whilst the information contained within the
standard cannot be exhaustive, the guidance is intended to indicate what
constitutes reasonable, achievable provision in the inclusive design of
commercial fitness equipment.
From initial drafting through to final publication and dissemination, the adopted
process assisted in the appropriate application of technical expertise whilst
ensuring wide consultation and negotiation with stakeholder groups. Alignment
with an established standard development method has enabled user needs to
be successfully negotiated with industrial participants, and in this respect has
fulfilled research objective (4). A willingness to participate by those interested
parties making up the major stakeholder groups made it possible for a wide
range of needs to be incorporated and balanced within a single standard. The
result is a comprehensive and moderately prescriptive inclusive design
standard, available for use by equipment supplier design teams throughout the
commercial fitness equipment industry.
The primary hypothesis guiding this thesis is that “producing a user-informed,
consortium standard is an effective means to support designers in adopting
inclusive design practices for commercial fitness equipment”. With the standard
now established, its effectiveness in supporting more inclusive design practices
can consequently be considered. Chapter Seven assesses the value assigned
by the commercial fitness equipment industry to the published inclusive design
standard, and through case studies and questionnaire evaluation reports
stakeholder feedback on the standard, illustrating its practical application by
major equipment suppliers to their current fitness equipment designs.
149
Chapter Seven: Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Inclusive Design Standard
7.1 Introduction
This thesis’ governing hypothesis is that “producing a user-informed, consortium
standard is an effective means to support designers in adopting inclusive design
practices for commercial fitness equipment”. Following the formal process
undertaken to develop and achieve consensus on the content of the inclusive
design standard, and its publication and subsequent dissemination throughout
the fitness equipment industry, the present chapter reports commercial
responses to this new documentation, and its effectiveness as a tool to support
more inclusive design practices. Two primary research methods were
employed. Firstly, a series of case studies are presented, giving examples of
actual product design changes resulting from the application of the inclusive
design standard to commercially available fitness equipment. These studies
illustrate both an uptake of the standard and also validate that the standard’s
availability has indeed impacted current design practices. The second research
method involved analysis of qualitative data, gathered from product design
teams via questionnaire, on their experiences of utilising the standard.
Feedback from respondents is examined to identify trends and provide
judgements on the effectiveness of the standard in supporting more inclusive
design practices. Commentary on the wider significance and value of the
inclusive design standard to the fitness industry is also provided through
supplementary evidence from external organisations, including two national
standards-setting bodies and an International Paralympic Committee (IPC)
representative. In combination, this work provides evidence to fulfil research
objective (5) by investigating the impact and effectiveness of the developed
inclusive design standard on design practices within the fitness equipment
industry.
150
7.2 Impact on Current Design Practice - Inclusive
Product Developments
Incorporation within thG IFI’s formal product endorsement scheme has
undoubtedly provided wide exposure for the inclusive design standard. The IFI’s
list of ‘Accredited Items’ represents the definitive guide to the inclusive fitness
equipment available in the UK marketplace (NCPAD, 2006). Since 1st October
2007, compliance with the inclusive design standard (also known as the ‘IFI
Equipment Standard - Stage Two’ within this context) has been a mandatory
requirement to achieve the IFI’s Accredited Item status. Eighteen months into
this adoption period, on 1st April 2009, the number of IFI Accredited Items
totalled 90 products, available across 14 different commercial equipment
suppliers. Table 7.1 provides a breakdown of these items by generic product
type, demonstrating the successful application of the inclusive design standard
to a broad spectrum of equipment categories.
Table 7.1: ‘IFI Accredited Items’ known to comply fully with the inclusive
design standard (as at 1st April 2009) by generic product type
Generic Product TypeNumber of Compliant Products
Strength equipment - upper body 24Strength equipment - lower body 21Strength equipment - multistation 10Upright cycle 6Recumbent cycle 8Upper body ergometer 4Treadmill 8Elliptical / crosstrainer 2Balance training platform 1Vibration training platform 2Miscellaneous / Other 4
Total 90
151
As full conformity with the inclusive design standard has been established for
every product, the case studies presented in this chapter are all extracted from
this data source. Each case study has been selected to correspond with one of
the five dominant themes identified by disabled users as being particularly
problematic during practical product testing. Inclusive product features,
implemented as a direct consequence of the requirements set out in the
inclusive design standard, thus address the following themes:
• Adjustment mechanisms difficult to use - Case Study A
• Need for clear and easy access onto equipment - Case Study B
• Unsuitable resistance increments and ranges of movement - Case Study C
• Overly complex programming - Case Study D
• Lack of multi-sensory information on user-product interfaces - Case Study E.
For each of the five themes identified, reduced levels of design exclusion are
described after implementation of the inclusive design standard, with products
shown before and after for comparative purposes. Case study methods are
advantageous for displaying such like-for-like product comparisons and for
conveying examples of good practice. The case studies that follow have been
selected as those considered to best illustrate a variety of components and
product types which are shown to be indicative of the breadth of application of
the inclusive design standard. No bias is intended through the presentation of
particular products or representation of certain supplier organisations. The
author is aware of commercial sensitivities in this area and wishes to stress that
other equipment manufacturers, not specifically profiled here, have also made
significant advances in increasing the accessibility of their products.
The case studies have been extracted during conformity testing conducted by
the author, following new product developments completed by equipment
supplier design staff as a consequence of the inclusive design standard. The
product imagery in this chapter has been gathered during this conformity testing
and from industry literature collected at the Leisure Industry Week (LIW) 2008
and Club Industry ’08 trade events. All products can be purchased in the UK
152
and have associated marketing information available within the public domain.
Disclosed product details are therefore not knowingly contravening any pre
existing supplier confidentiality arrangements.
CASE STUDY A : Ease of use of adjustment mechanisms
The use of adjustment mechanisms was reported as a significant and
widespread source of design exclusion by many disabled users during practical
testing. Many mechanisms were commonly described as being difficult to locate
and complicated, laborious or awkward to use. The requirements of the
inclusive design standard hence focused on making adjustment mechanisms
more obvious to find and easier to use. One method for achieving this was to
promote the use of contrasting colours to make adjustment mechanisms easier
to identify. Figure 7.1 shows the impact of a simple colour change on an
otherwise identical weight selection pin to make it more noticeable. Perhaps the
most obvious beneficiaries of this increased contrast differential are people with
visual impairments. However, more subtle benefits include easier
communication with users with learning difficulties or when using sign language
to provide instruction to deaf individuals (signing “pull yellow” is more
straightforward than having to fully describe the form and location of the
adjustment when its position cannot easily be seen). Fitness equipment
designers following the inclusive design standard are widely implementing the
principle of colour coding throughout a product, by specifying all adjustment
mechanisms to be an identical colour. This visually coded set-up provides clear
and consistent information on the location of adjustment mechanisms. Incurring
minimal cost, this highly practicable approach encourages independent usage,
offering benefits to both disabled and non-disabled product users.
153
Figure 7.1: Increased colour contrast on weight selection pin
Reducing the design exclusion emanating from adjustment mechanisms offers
a good example of the progressive nature of the inclusive design standard and
its mandatory requirements. Conditions surrounding colour contrast were
introduced into the draft for development version of the standard to assist users
with locating adjustment mechanisms. However, the final version of the
inclusive design standard also went on to consider the more complex physical
interactions required to make adjustments, demonstrating a clear intention from
members of the equipment expert panel to include a wider range of disabled
individuals. The inclusive design standard contains specific criterion
surrounding the ease of manipulation of activation pins, the ability to perform
such operations with only a single hand and the avoidance of right- and left-
hand bias. In combination these requirements should assist users with limited
hand function or reduced finger dexterity as well as those with asymmetric
strength, including amputees, individuals who have had stroke and people with
arthritis. These considerations may also be equally important for people who
use mobility devices, including crutches and walking sticks, where one side of
the body is used to gain support from the aid whilst the other is free to make
adjustments to the equipment.
154
Figure 7.2 evidences a weight adjustment pin re-designed to comply with the
inclusive design standard. The redesigned ring-pull shape does not require the
use of a pinch-grip for operation, making it less demanding of fine motor control
and finger dexterity to grasp and manipulate. Figure 7.3 illustrates a similar re
design of a pulley unit adjustment pin in order to more easily facilitate one
handed use. Compared to the original design, the D-shaped handle offers a
larger gripping area and a more natural hand orientation for the vertical
movements required of this adjustment. In combination these features provide
greater purchase and hence control to move the pulley unit into the desired
vertical position. As less physical strength is required, the adjustment is now
achievable using only one hand.
Before... After...
Figure 7.2: Ring-pull shaped weight selection pin for ease of
grasp and manipulation
155
Before. After.
Figure 7.3: Pulley unit adjustment pin re-designed to facilitate
one handed use
Of equal importance to the shape of actuation pins and one-handed use, is the
avoidance of left- and right- hand bias when positioning adjustment
mechanisms. Traditional seat height adjustment mechanisms on exercise
cycles usually require the use of two hands; a retaining pin is pulled and held to
release with one hand, whilst the saddle is simultaneously lifted or lowered with
the other hand. To conform to the inclusive design standard’s requirements for
one-handed use without bias, a gas-assisted seat adjustment was introduced
onto the upright cycle shown in Figure 7.4(a). Different seat height positions are
set by pressing the large lever embedded centrally into the rear of the saddle,
making this adjustment easily achievable using only one hand and without left-
or right- sided bias. Similarly, the short original adjustment lever has been
lengthened and wrapped around the front and both sides of the seating
arrangement on the recumbent cycle in Figure 7.4(b). In this configuration the
adjustment can be activated with either hand, from multiple positions along its
length, thus offering choice and flexibility to all users. Both of these seat height
adjustment mechanisms were designed to meet identical clauses in the
inclusive design standard, suggesting the generic requirements contained within
the standard can be applied with equal success to different product types.
156
Before. After..
(a) Upright cycle
Before... After.
(b) Recumbent cycle
Figure 7.4: Centrally located seat height adjustment mechanisms to avoid
left- or right- hand bias
157
CASE STUDY B: Need for clear and easy access onto
equipment
A lack of clear and easy access onto equipment was described as problematic
by many disabled users during practical product testing. Although apparent
across several impairment profiles, perhaps the most conspicuous and
prohibitive issue was the inability of wheelchair users to access upper body
equipment due to being obstructed by fixed, immovable seating arrangements.
As required by the inclusive design standard, Figure 7.5 illustrates the
replacement of a non-removable seat with one that can be swung out of
position, leaving an unobstructed floor space for those wishing to exercise from
a wheelchair. For safety, the seat is physically locked when in either the
standard or removed exercise positions. Significantly, a twist-and-lock plunger,
that can be lifted and retained in an open position whilst the seat is moved into
the desired location, was specified for the removable seat mechanism. Whilst
removing the seat with only one hand, wheelchair users can then use their other
hand to either brace themselves against the forces involved in moving the seat,
or can make small manoeuvring adjustments to the position of their wheelchair.
Through the re-design of this product to meet the inclusive design standard’s
removable seat criteria, the almost complete exclusion of wheelchair users from
accessing this product has been remedied.
158
Before. After..
Figure 7.5: Addition of removable seat to facilitate wheelchair access
CASE STUDY C: Unsuitable resistance increments and
ranges of movement
Cognitive walkthrough was commonly utilised by the equipment expert panel
when setting the technical content of the inclusive design standard. Considering
the product through the eyes of its users was intended to give greater regard to
the product as a whole, as opposed to only considering interactions with
individual components. This technique proved particularly important in
identifying how individual design changes may have secondary, and otherwise
unforeseen, impact on the remaining product. The addition of a removable seat
to the equipment in Figure 7.5 undeniably facilitated wheelchair access.
However, it concurrently exacerbated the difficulties some users experienced in
reaching the high handle in order to perform the exercise correctly. Several
small and seated users reported design exclusion caused by handles being
positioned too high to reach during practical product testing. Historically on lat
159
pulldown equipment, such as that shown in Figure 7.5, users would stand up to
reach and draw down the high handle into the exercise start position, whilst at
the same time manoeuvring their legs around and below the knee pad to sit on
the seat. For wheelchair users with limited or no leg function, this range of
movement is practically impossible to achieve. To remedy this considerable
barrier to exercise, an additional pulley and increased cable length were added
to create a pivoting adjustment mechanism capable of lowering the height of the
handle, as shown in Figure 7.6. The inclusion of an additional adjustment
initially caused a certain degree of concern due to the increased product
complexity. The decision to implement the new adjustment was followed
however, as it was deemed to benefit the majority of users. Any detrimental
effects of increased product complexity could also be partially offset through
colour coding of adjustment mechanisms for ease of set up, as illustrated by
Case Study A.
In order to enable the maximum number of users to benefit from the new
lowered handle position, the inclusive design standard also demands that the
seat be height adjustable to accommodate users of all heights, and also
sufficiently wide for those preferring to transfer from a wheelchair to exercise.
Additionally, the instructions for use must be located so as to be at eye-level
when in a seated position. Whilst instigated predominantly with a bias towards
accommodating the needs of wheelchair users, these developments will benefit
a much wider range of individuals. For example, users of differing heights and
those with limited shoulder flexibility should be able to achieve a correct, non
stressed start position more easily beneath the exercise handle due to the
product’s increased adjustability. Obese users are offered more comfort and
support by the wider seat, whilst those with visual impairments are assisted by
the reduced reading distance to the instructional panel. Many of these features
offer equally positive benefits to non-disabled users, reflecting the true ethos of
inclusive design.
160
Before. After.
> j
i &
Figure 7.6: Lowering of high handle to accommodate small and
seated users
What is evident from this case study is the need to adhere to the inclusive
design standard in its entirety. Failing to consider product usage holistically, and
applying only selected criteria from the standard, will not necessarily enhance
usability or reduce design exclusion. Consequential effects of design changes,
positive and negative, must be appreciated and the cognitive walkthrough
technique employed by the equipment expert panel appears to offer a
satisfactory approach to these considerations.
CASE STUDY D: Overly complex programming
Programming and set up of electronic control consoles was cited as a major
source of design exclusion by users when attempting to access cardiovascular
fitness equipment. Criticised for being complicated and confusing, these
consoles were hard to navigate and often difficult and unclear to read.
Improving this situation was hence a major focus for the inclusive design
161
standard, as demonstrated by the two re-designed consoles in Figures 7.7 and
7.8. In Figure 7.7, the upper section of the console offers only the five main
functions required to operate the equipment successfully. This grouping of
controls for simplicity is intended to make programming less intimidating for
users unfamiliar with the product. More advanced programme options, for those
requiring them, are available in the lower section of the console. To enable
users to better distinguish button locations, all button diameters have been
enlarged and an increased colour differential applied between the button edges
and surrounding background material. These developments will offer particular
assistance to visually impaired users and also those with limited dexterity or
tremor by providing larger activation areas to target. All main controls are
labelled clearly to indicate their function in large, sans-serif and colour
contrasting text. To maximise the legibility of this text, these descriptive labels
are presented in sentence case font, rather than block capital letters. Pictorial
icons have also been introduced as button descriptors, a feature helpful for non-
English speaking users and which also supports usage by people with learning
difficulties. Most of these icons have been provided in a raised, tactile format to
enable blind users to navigate around the main control buttons through touch
alone.
Before... After...
P O W E R © P L A T E
Repeal
Press STOP to end your session
Figure 7.7: Console re-design to increase button clarity and
simplify programming
162
As in Case Study A, the effective use of colour to enhance product usage has
also been considered during console re-designs. To definitively distinguish the
primary and most frequently used controls, the inclusive design standard
stipulates that green is utilised on all ‘Start’ and ‘Quick Start’ functions. This
selection is intended to align with the colour scheme commonly associated with
‘go’ in a standard traffic light system. Correspondingly, the use of red is dictated
on ‘Stop’ controls to provide increased recognition of this important safety
feature. The console in Figure 7.8 additionally illustrates the colour coding of
control pairs that offer related functionality. Identical colours indicate a natural
coupling, as shown by the yellow background to both the increase and
decrease load buttons on the lower right hand side of the console. To avoid
confusion different colours are implemented for each set of paired controls,
demonstrated by the use of orange, as opposed to yellow, on the increase and
decrease incline buttons on the lower left hand side of the console. These
colour schemes are aimed at increasing button recognition and reducing the
reliance on language alone for basic programming. Such changes will be
advantageous for visually impaired users who are unable to see or decipher the
written word but who are able to discriminate between colours. These
developments should also reduce design exclusion and encourage more
independent product usage by non-English speaking users and those with
learning difficulties, for whom language comprehension is a significant barrier to
access. All enrichments made to consoles to comply with the inclusive design
standard are intended to improve usability and generally simplify product
programming. Whilst benefits for specific impairment groups are highlighted,
these modifications should have a positive impact on all users, whether
impaired or not.
163
Before. After..
QuickStart
Incline
Figure 7.8: Console re-design utilising colour for identification of
major functions
CASE STUDY E: Lack of multi-sensory information on
user-product interfaces
Case Study A describes the progressive nature of the inclusive design
standard’s technical requirements during its evolution from a draft for
development to a more comprehensive manuscript. The intention of the current
case study is to show the parallel advancement in the ability of equipment
supplier design staff to respond to the requirements of the standard. Nowhere is
this phenomenon more apparent than in response to the lack of multisensory
information on user-product interfaces. Consoles on cardiovascular equipment
were heavily criticised during practical product testing for an absence of tactile
information to aid visually-impaired, blind and deaf-blind users. Thus, both the
draft for development and the inclusive design standard dictate the provision of
tactile information on console buttons to assist users with reduced vision. In
order to comply with the draft for development standard it was only necessary to
identify the location of the button by touch, through either a raised icon
contained within the button or through provision of tactile information to
delineate the button edge. In Figure 7.9 the left hand image illustrates one
solution employed to obtain compliance with this requirement. Solid circular
sections were removed from the plastic overlay where they align with the button
164
activation areas located beneath. These openings can easily be felt by touch
and do not impede access to the button. The real importance of this example is
in illustrating the necessary use of a retrofit solution at this stage, demonstrating
a practical limitation when initially introducing inclusive design into the
commercial setting. Few UK equipment supplier representatives were able to
influence the very first stages of overseas new product development by non-UK
product design teams, where true integration of inclusive requirements could be
achieved most cost-effectively. Exposure to the new inclusive design standard
often occurred at an inopportune point in product design cycles for changes to
be effectively incorporated. Issues particularly arose when new product design
was started from the premise of re-designing an established, non-inclusive
product rather than from a completely new concept. Additionally, some initial
resistance to investing in expensive re-tooling costs was apparent from those
who had not participated directly with the development of the inclusive design
standard. Their concerns centred mainly on risk and return on investment until
inclusive products had been confirmed as being commercially viable in the UK
marketplace. Due to overseas manufacture much of the retrofitting work was
carried out by UK technical support departments, with costs typically being
absorbed by the UK-based supplier organisation and not the parent company.
More stringent requirements surrounding the provision of tactile information on
consoles were mandated in the inclusive design standard compared to the draft
for development. As the citation in section 6.2.3.5 of Chapter Six clearly shows,
the inclusive design standard requires both the location and functionality of the
button to be identifiable through touch alone. Quantitative parameters are
specified for the dimensions of this more comprehensive tactile offering, along
with conditions on its durability and fitness for purpose. Figure 7.9 evidences
the console subsequently developed by the same equipment supplier design
staff to comply with the inclusive design standard. Tactile information on this
console is provided through an embossing process applied onto the main
console overlay. This is an integrated approach, manifesting from the
requirements of the inclusive design standard being considered at the very
beginning of the design process. The result is clearly defined, resilient tactile
165
iconography which successfully allows visually impaired users to navigate
around the console through touch.
Before... After...
Figure 7.9: Progression from retrofit to integrated solution for provision of
tactile information on consoles
7.3 Effectiveness of the Inclusive Design Standard in
Supporting Change
Case Studies A to E and Table 7.1 are indicative of the successful application of
the inclusive design standard to a range of different product types and use by
multiple supplier design teams. This strongly suggests that the technical content
of the standard is appropriate and that it has been effectively disseminated
166
throughout the fitness equipment industry. With the suitability of the standard
established, and more inclusive design principles evidently adopted into product
development processes, it becomes necessary to examine the value of the
standard in supporting product designers with this transition. Insight into this
area was gained through the development of a questionnaire to elicit primary
data from equipment supplier design teams. Consisting of five open-ended
questions, of which four incorporated an additional closed Yes/No question, this
survey aimed to collect opinions and experiences of utilising the standard to
achieve more inclusive design practices. A completely open text field was
offered at the end of the document for respondents to provide any additional or
generic comments as desired. For reference, Appendix J contains a copy of the
questionnaire and its associated covering letter along with examples of
completed surveys.
The questionnaire was issued to all supplier organisations having one or more
products on the I FI’s Accredited Items list on 1st April 2009. This represents an
18-month implementation period between incorporation of the inclusive design
standard into the IFI’s product endorsement scheme and distribution of the
questionnaire. Taking differing design cycles into account, this timeframe was
deemed as the minimum necessary to gain sufficient breadth of application of
the standard in order to collect comprehensive and truly informed feedback.
Multiple requests for responses were made to six larger supplier organisations,
where it was known that several departments had separately implemented
significant parts of the standard (for example, where separate strength and
cardiovascular product design teams existed). From the 20 questionnaires
issued to product designers across 14 organisations, 12 were received back
from 8 different companies, equating to a 60% questionnaire response rate. Of
these, 2 questionnaires explicitly listed multiple names in the respondent
information section, suggesting these replies offered combined feedback from
several members of these product design teams. The total data set thus
encompasses the views of 15 individuals. Data analysis consisted of tallying
Yes/No responses to closed questions and performing a content analysis on the
qualitative narrative provided for each open-ended question across all
questionnaires. Significant findings and emerging themes which evidence the
167
value of the inclusive design standard to the equipment supplier design staff
providing comment are presented below. For reasons of confidentiality, all
extracts are quoted anonymously with specific references to products or
geographical locations removed.
According to submission information, the data set comprises opinions from
individuals typically describing their job roles as: Director of New Products,
Product Manager, Brand Manager, Managing Director, Product Designer and
Senior Mechanical Engineer. The questionnaire commenced by directly asking
these respondents as to whether they had found the inclusive design standard
useful in incorporating inclusive principles into the design of their equipment. An
overwhelming majority, eleven out of twelve replies, responded positively with
justifications for their decisions including:
"The ‘IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two’ determines measurable, exact
engineering values to be met by the design. So the principles to be followed are
translated to Engineering language."
(Program / Brand Manager)
"Good set up. Presents standards in a way that allows designers to use
information, e.g. distances, clearances."
(Director of Quality)
"The stage two standard is useful because it puts quantitative limits on design
variables that I personally may not have thought of when formulating a design.
For example, I might design the seat height on a machine to accommodate the
height of a 5th percentile female, but not necessarily a less-than
able-bodied person."
(Mechanical Engineer)
"This standard shows new principles, tools, and design approach for a more
ergonomic construction."
(Program / Brand Manager)
168
"Gives set standards to design against and helps reduce the amount of
research needed to be conducted personally into inclusivity."
(Product Designer)
"The standard was very helpful in describing what features were important for
enabling people with various disabilities to use the equipment. It gave detailed
guidelines on how to use color contrast, graphics size and tactile feedback for
aiding sight-impaired users, step-on height guidelines and motion lock-out for
aiding mobility or balance-impaired users, and centralized location of electronic
controls for users with loss of capability on one side of their body."
(Director of New Products)
These quotations advocate the usefulness of the inclusive design standard in
providing quantitative design parameters. On the whole equipment supplier
design staff welcomed this type of data as informative and constructive,
enabling them to integrate the information into their current design processes.
The single negative response received concerning the usefulness of the
standard reported that some of these parameters were too restrictive and
obliged all product designers to develop the same solution. Whilst not wishing to
undermine the validity of this response, and acknowledging that standards
should indeed enable the implementation of innovative solutions, the author
believes this comment may be in reference to a specific issue, known to have
occurred on a single product, and is not a wider reflection of the standard in its
entirety. This respondent, along with all others, goes on to commit to a
continuing use of the standard:
"I believe the design intent that the standard promotes is worthwhile and I will
continue to keep these principles in mind for future designs."
(Mechanical Engineer)
"As a company we are currently taking into account Stage 2 standards in the
design of our new CV range."
(Product Designer)
169
Ongoing commitment to wider use of the inclusive design standard was also
shown by three respondents who reported application of its technical content to
products not explicitly intended as their ‘inclusive’ range:
'We now include many of the principles into the R&D stage of all equipment as
we find the Inclusive designs are also suitable for the units we produce for the
Medical and Active Ageing markets."
(UK/European Managing Director)
"Some indication contained in the standards may bring benefits to users not
considered ‘disabled’ and it’s possible that we will implement related features on
‘standard’ fitness equipment."
(Product Manager)
“We will try and use (some if not all) the information contained within the
standards right across our product range."
(UK/European Managing Director)
The phenomenon of applying the standard more widely than originally
anticipated offers an additional level of value to the fitness equipment industry.
One significant reason attributed to this success was the efficacy of the
inclusive design standard as an aid to communication. Ease of communication
across organisations was one of the original tenets for the production of a
design standard, and equipment supplier design staff feedback suggests that
the dissemination of inclusive design information via a written medium is indeed
proving beneficial. As one respondent explains:
"I am the UK IFI representative, not directly part of the [non-UK based] design
team. However I am responsible for either ensuring IFI products are designed in
the [non-UK location] to meet the needs of the IFI, or to modify machines locally
within the UK to meet IFI requirements. The Stage 2 standards have allowed
me to identify in detail the needs of the IFI standards. The more detailed the
standard the less room for interpretation. Where the products have had to be
170
modified locally in the UK (albeit as a short term measure) the document has
been (and continues to be) very useful as a working document to carry
out the changes.’’
(UK Service Manager)
Similarly, a product designer based outside of the UK confirms the importance
of the inclusive design standard in providing guidance to those operating at a
geographical distance:
"Considering that the product development of our equipment is done in either
[non-UK location A] or in [non-UK location B] where the IFI standard is much
less known, it was crucial that the IFI equipment standard was developed to
provide us with the necessary direction."
(International Strength Product Manager)
These quotations support the general lack of knowledge about how to design to
include people with impairments, believed to have previously pervaded the
industry. Anecdotal descriptions of this situation, uncovered initially during
literature searches and also focus group work with equipment supplier
representatives, were reinforced by all twelve questionnaire responses. As the
following extracts substantiate, inclusive design was rarely practised, if at all, in
the industry before exposure to the draft for development (Stage One),
published as part of the current research:
"Other than Stage 1 information, no inclusive design was undertaken- no
previous information was available."
(UK Service Manager)
"We didn't specifically address inclusive design. We have always worked to
make our equipment usable by a wide range of people. We do this by building
prototype equipment and surveying users with various heights, ages and body
weight. All of these surveys are typically done with non-impaired individuals."
(Director of New Products)
171
Subsequent to working with the inclusive design standard, and gaining
familiarity with its content, fitness equipment design staff were questioned about
the in-house development of comparable inclusive design data. Their feedback
suggests it is highly unlikely that this type of documentation would have been
developed within individual supplier organisations, due predominantly to time
and resource constraints:
“Without the information supplied as part of the IFI process, the resources within
the UK office would seriously inhibit such a standard or anything approaching it
from being developed.”
(UK Service Manager)
“It is difficult to say, but I think it would have been quite a lengthy process and
not easily undertaken. ”
(Director of New Products)
“It would not have been pursued."
(Director of Quality)
“Hundreds of man hours would be required. Most likely we would not have
investigated this field with our own resources."
(Group Product Manager)
A lack of confidence from respondents in their ability to produce comprehensive
inclusive design information within acceptable commercial parameters, points
towards the need for a collaborative approach to generating this type of data.
The consortium model employed, with an independent body stimulating and
leading the research, appears to have been effective in overcoming inertia,
enabling a comprehensive and accepted standard to be developed. Provision of
the inclusive design standard has thus been instrumental in both prompting and
supporting participating product designers, and the organisations within which
they work, in their transition towards more inclusive design practices. It is
encouraging that, given their starting points, of the seven respondents who had
172
received customer feedback on products compliant with the inclusive design
standard, all reported this to be positive:
"The IFI requirements work so more people can use the equipment."
(Director of Quality)
"In general we have got positive feedback on the highlighted, color contrasted
adjustments/settings/markings on our products."
(Program / Brand Manager)
"The IFI keypad - the colour coding, raised iconography etc are all easier to
access. Flowever, some users simply prefer the look of this keypad
to the standard one!"
(General Manager)
"Very positive, as mentioned earlier we have found that many features fit other
markets. For example we now use the IFI overlay on our console as a standard
for all consoles."
(Vice President Operations)
"Our sales team has also received requests from [non-UK based] customers for
the IFI-compliant step-up platform that we created for [our inclusive product].
We didn't anticipate this, as we assumed it would only be useful for mobility-
impaired individuals. So, this feature has been even more inclusive
than we anticipated!"
(Director of New Products)
These latter examples indicate the success of the standard in increasing user
satisfaction with fitness equipment through reductions in design exclusion. In
many cases it seems that inclusive features are making a transition to replace
those on ‘standard’ versions of the product. In this respect the inclusive design
standard offers a foundation for widespread integration of inclusivity, where
considering the needs of disabled people is regarded as a genuine asset by
equipment supplier design staff. This undoubtedly has positive implications for
173
the long term applicability of the research findings, as one respondent
summarises:
"The most important legacy of the standard is to continue to encourage design
teams to 'think inclusive' when designing products, not to consider it as an add
on for a special version of the machine, but for the 'standard' machine to
become the 'inclusive' machine. Within [our company], I have noticed over the
years of being involved with the IFI standards how less changes are required to
the standard product to meet the IFI needs - this is a positive indication that the
'inclusive needs' are becoming a 'design need' rather than an afterthought."
(UK Service Manager)
The increasingly seamless integration of inclusive principles into fitness
equipment design processes suggests that there is a basis for the enduring
application of inclusive design within the fitness industry.
7.4 Endorsement by National Standards Organisations
The cause for long term adoption of inclusive design practices within the fitness
equipment industry has been further progressed by the formal recognition of the
inclusive design standard by two separate national standards-setting bodies as
well as other external organisations. These endorsements provide the standard
with additional merit, important for engendering confidence amongst product
design teams that the standard can support them in adopting inclusive design
practices. Crucially, these external acknowledgements also present
opportunities to further embed usage of the standard within the industry,
through its wider dissemination and long term sustainability.
174
7.4.1 British Standards Institution, Committee for European
Normalisation and International Organization for
Standardization
As a direct consequence of the development of the inclusive design standard,
the European Standards Committee for Stationary Training Equipment
(Technical Committee CEN/TC 136 “Sports, playground and other recreational
equipment”) has made a formal recognition of the importance of inclusion. The
European standard under this group’s jurisdiction, EN 957, governs the safety
of fitness equipment throughout the 28 CEN member countries, comprising the
European Union nations along with Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. Each
member nation adopts the EN 957 safety standard through its national
standards body. Hence, CEN (EN) standards are automatically adopted in the
UK by the British Standards Institution and published as British (BS EN)
Standards. Part 1 of the EN 957 standard outlines a classification system by
which equipment should be marked as to its suitability and accuracy for
Commercial (Class S) or Home (Class H) usage. A revision to this Part in 2005
saw the introduction of a completely new class, Inclusive use (Class I), which
recognises equipment “provided for inclusive use for people with special needs
e.g. visual, hearing, physical or learning disabilities” (BSI, 2005h, pg 8). The
draft for development (Stage One) publication was referenced as the only
formal national guidance document available for achieving this usage
classification. The intention is that subsequent revisions will be updated to cite
the more comprehensive inclusive design standard (Stage Two). Whilst
currently positioned as an addendum to the main body of the EN 957 standard,
the integration of appropriate inclusive requirements will also be advocated
during periodic reviews of each of its specific Parts. Before making normative
reference within a standard to a publication outside the direct control of a
national standards body, BSI demand that the publication has wide acceptance
and authoritative status (BSI, 2005f). In 2005, EN 957 was reproduced faithfully
as the content of the new international standard for fitness equipment ISO
20957: 2005 (ISO, 2005). Hence, recognition of the inclusive design standard
175
within the international standards development community, as well as providing
for its longevity, corroborates and expands the level of consensus achieved.
7.4.2 American Society for Testing and Materials
With the USA boasting the largest fitness market in the world, and a significant
number of fitness equipment supplier organisations being American owned and
based, it was considered imperative to penetrate this marketplace and
encourage uptake of the inclusive design standard. There are many
organisations that comprise the USA’s standardisation system, of which one of
the largest and most diverse is the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) International. Through collaboration with ASTM’s Technical Committee
F08.30 on Fitness Products, a task group was initiated by this standards
developing organisation in April 2008 to further develop standards for inclusive
fitness equipment design. The focus of this sub-committee (WK19803: Inclusive
Fitness Equipment Design) is to “facilitate access to mainstream fitness
equipment to a wider range of the population across all abilities” (Rauworth,
2008, pg 1). The technical content of the inclusive design standard formed a
considerable proportion of the first and all subsequent working drafts of the
standard considered by this group, supported by information from Beneficial
Designs Inc. (www.beneficialdesigns.com), an American organisation funded
through the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research to
develop universal design guidelines for fitness equipment. One of the
committee’s founder members summarises the value of the inclusive design
standard to the ASTM national standards body:
“The IFI has already made significant progress with the development
of fitness standards for the UK and this acquired experience will be a
substantial advantage in formulating a uniform set of standards for
inclusive, accessible fitness equipment in the US and UK and a
positive step towards creating global standards. ”
(Rauworth, 2008, pg 1)
176
A harmonised inclusive design standard across Europe and the USA, two of the
most dominant and established fitness markets in the world, will offer a strong
platform from which to progress to a unified worldwide standard. The global
economy has raised the stakes in standards development, with the American
National Standards Institute (2005) believing the impetus to develop globally
accepted standards to be greater now than ever before. Standards reflecting an
international perspective need to be in place to maximise exporting potential, as
using one standard across multiple markets is more efficient and less
expensive, making trade significantly easier and simpler (BSI, 2002; ASTM,
undated a). With fitness equipment supplier organisations typically selling
product ranges transcontinental^, a common inclusive design standard will
undoubtedly support their overseas commerce and export. As an associated
benefit, this economy of scale may also offer fitness equipment supplier
organisations further justification of any investment required to achieve
compliance with the standard. ASTM’s recognition of the inclusive design
standard has therefore not only increased the credibility and level of consensus
surrounding the standard’s technical content, it has also provided impetus and
solid foundation from which to pursue a single global standard.
7.5 Endorsement by Non-Standards Related
Organisations
Alongside endorsement by national standard setting bodies, the provision of
recommendations regarding the needs of disabled people in relation to fitness
equipment design, as contained within the inclusive design standard, have also
received recognition from organisations outside of the standards development
community. This phenomenon of external acknowledgement has provided
assistance to further embed the principles of inclusive design into the fitness
equipment industry.
177
7.5.1 UK Trade & Investment and International Paralympic
Committee
The inclusive design standard has received recognition from UK Trade &
Investment (UKTI). Hosted to coincide with the 2008 Olympic and Paralympic
Games held in Beijing, China, UKTI’s ‘12 for 2012: Winning With Innovation’
competition focused on acknowledging products, services or materials that
have, or will, revolutionise sport. The IFI was selected as one of only twelve
award winners for “the impact made in the design of inclusive fitness
equipment, underpinned by robust standards developed in consultation with
disabled people and the commercial fitness industry” (Catton, 2008). Other
winners included Speedo, for their revolutionary LZR Racer high performance
swimsuits, and civil engineers Arup for the spectacular Olympic ‘Bird Nest’
stadium. During his keynote address at the awards reception, Sir Philip Craven,
President of the International Paralympic Committee, endorsed the work of the
IFI in solving the challenges disabled athletes, at all levels, encounter in
accessing fitness equipment:
“The IFI Equipment Standards have provided the designers of fitness
equipment throughout the world with long overdue advice and
guidance in developing products that are accessible and useable by
everyone. The IFI is to be congratulated on this award that
recognises eight years of innovation and development in this field
providing both physical activity and strength and conditioning
opportunities for all people. ”
Sir Philip Craven, President of the International Paralympic Committee,
August 2008
(reported in Catton, 2008, pg 1)
178
7.5.2 Local Authorities and Leisure Trusts
The use of standards is advocated by BSI as being particularly beneficial within
public sector procurement contracts (BSI, 2005b). UK Government-funded
Local Authorities and Leisure Trusts have necessarily been quick to consider,
and react to, the legislative implications of the Disability Discrimination Act
(HMSO, 1995; TSO 2005) on their gyms and fitness facilities. Feedback from
supplier representative questionnaires suggests that up to 90% of all new
fitness equipment tenders emanating from this sector now specify a
requirement for IFI Accredited products. Additionally, a number of capital
funders, including Sport Scotland and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland,
have placed specific conditions on the installation of inclusive fitness equipment
as part of their funding criteria. As Easton (2009) explains:
“IFI Accreditation - currently based on the IFI Equipment Standards
Stage 2 - is the only formal frame of reference for purchasers and
users to determine whether equipment is designed inclusively. ”
(Easton, 2009, pg 42)
In this capacity the inclusive design standard is not only supporting equipment
supplier design staff in adopting more inclusive practices, it is also enabling
equipment purchasers to easily assess and compare the inclusivity of different
products. The stipulation by Local Authority and Leisure Trust procurement
teams, and capital funding providers, for products which meet the inclusive
design standard demonstrates their implicit regard for the standard and its
usefulness.
7.6 Conclusion
Subsequent to the development, publication and dissemination of the inclusive
design standard for commercial fitness equipment, this chapter has explored
179
the industry response to this newly available resource. In order to gather
evidence to indicate the validity of the thesis’ governing hypothesis, and to
address research objective (5), two primary data collection methods were
employed to study the value of the standard to equipment supplier design staff
striving to achieve more inclusive product designs. Firstly, a series of case
studies evidence the application of the standard in its entirety to a range of
different product types, all now commercially available in the UK market. All of
the products showcased are from equipment supplier design teams who have
implemented design changes to evolve their mainstream products into more
accessible and inclusive versions. Each case study directly addresses one of
the five dominant themes identified by disabled users during practical product
testing as being particularly problematic and inaccessible. Reduced levels of
design exclusion are indicated in all of these important areas, along with the
progressive nature of the standard’s content as it advanced from a draft for
development into its final, more comprehensive, format. The imperative that
product designers implement the standard in its entirety, to ensure the needs of
all impairment groups are considered cohesively, is additionally highlighted
through the case study examples. Necessary design compromises to
accommodate different, and often opposing, user needs are outlined. Finally,
the case studies offer evidence of the increasing ability of equipment supplier
design staff to fully integrate the requirements of the inclusive design standard
into their products, rather than produce retrofit solutions.
With physical product design changes established as a result of the existence of
the inclusive design standard, a questionnaire-based data collection method
was implemented to source primary data from fitness equipment design staff.
This approach was utilised to assess the effectiveness of the inclusive design
standard in supporting the product developments evidenced by the case
studies. Positive responses were overwhelmingly achieved to questions
concerning the usefulness of the standard in adopting more inclusive design
practices. The specific, quantifiable and measurable parameters offered by the
standard were particularly welcomed by product designers, as was the
existence of the standard as a general aid to interdepartmental communication.
Respondents indicated an increasing transition of inclusive features onto
180
‘standard’ versions of products, suggesting a value for the standard beyond that
originally anticipated. Numerous commitments were received for the continuing
use of the standard in future design work.
Supplier representatives confirmed a previous lack of inclusive design data and
suggested that, due to resource limitations, it was unlikely that information
similar to that contained within the standard would be developed by their
individual organisations. Given the mounting evidence from the industry of its
transition towards more inclusive design practices, it could be concluded that
the inclusive design standard has removed at least one barrier to the production
of more inclusive products. Development of the standard via a consortium
approach appears to have provided sufficient impetus to supplier organisations
to overcome existing inertia towards this endeavour. Once developed,
recognition of the inclusive design standard by the IFI, both European and
American national standards setting bodies, UKTI, a leading International
Paralympic Committee representative, and numerous Local Authority and
Leisure Trust procurement teams, further substantiates the widespread value of
the standard throughout the industry.
This chapter thus provides evidence to support this thesis’ governing hypothesis
that producing a user-informed, consortium standard is an effective means to
support designers in adopting inclusive design practices for commercial fitness
equipment. Overall the findings tend to suggest that production of a standard is
indeed an effective means to support equipment supplier designer staff and the
organisations within which they work, as well as the wider industry, in the
adoption of more inclusive practices. Chapter Eight now goes on to consolidate
the main findings of the work and evaluate the extent to which the original
research aims have been met.
181
Chapter Eight: General Discussion and Conclusions
8.1 Introduction
The overarching aim of this thesis was to test the hypothesis that: “Producing a
user-informed, consortium standard is an effective means to support designers
in adopting inclusive design practices for commercial fitness equipment”. To
examine the validity of the hypothesis, five research objectives were set in order
to both develop the inclusive design standard and also to assess its subsequent
effectiveness:
(1) To corroborate a perceived lack of inclusive design information relevant to
commercial fitness equipment. To be achieved through an examination of
literature and other pertinent sources.
(2) To identify the foremost sources of design exclusion for a sample of disabled
users with a range of impairments. To be achieved through the practical testing
of fitness equipment.
(3) To explore barriers, opportunities and imperatives for the development of an
inclusive design standard with representatives from a sample of commercial
fitness equipment suppliers. To be achieved through a series of focus group
sessions.
(4) To create an inclusive design standard with consensus on its technical
content across all consulted parties. To be achieved through independent
expert panel guidance to equitably synthesise data collected from users and
suppliers.
(5) To investigate the impact and effectiveness of the developed inclusive
design standard on design practices within the fitness equipment industry. To
be achieved through case study and survey methods.
182
Fulfilment of these research objectives required a systematic set of studies to
be designed to obtain information from the three major stakeholder groups
deemed critical to influencing and achieving inclusive equipment design. This
chapter explores the extent to which the research has achieved each of the five
original objectives and evaluates the process by which they were realised.
Pertinent findings and conclusions are drawn together and presented under the
three key topic areas of; efficacy of the research approach, influences on the
effectiveness of the inclusive design standard and sustaining inclusive design
practices within the industry.
8.2 Efficacy of the Research Approach
In order to consider the validity and representativeness of the research findings,
it is necessary to firstly examine the efficacy of the research approach in terms
of developing the standard, its impact on inclusive design practices and any
limitations of the research methodology selected.
8.2.1 Development of the Inclusive Design Standard
The research aimed to secure an in-depth understanding of the complex subject
area of inclusive fitness equipment design through involving those participants
considered to have the greatest relevant knowledge. This multiple stakeholder
involvement was also used to achieve the widest possible level of consensus, a
necessity for successful standardisation (BSI, 2005e). Through predominantly
inductive and qualitative research techniques, it has been possible to
independently gather pertinent data from user, fitness equipment supplier and
health and fitness professionals stakeholder groups.
Through practical testing of commercially available fitness equipment, a sample
of disabled users have been able to give a clear understanding of existing
problems and indicate potential directions for improvement, which as Dong et
183
al. (2002) outline is a necessary basis for countering design exclusion. Some of
the issues identified with existing fitness equipment through this testing were
comparable to the limited examples of design exclusion found in the initial
literature review, for example authors such as McGough (1999) who identified
the existence of confusing adjustments and hard to read controls, and Bennett
(1999) who reported the need for seats that could be removed to make space
for wheelchair users. However, as a result of considering a wide range of both
users and product types beyond those previously considered by the fitness
industry, new issues were also detected. Testing of current equipment has
ensured the pertinence of the data set, from which it has been possible to draw
conclusions which have successfully formed the basis for the technical content
of the inclusive design standard. Practical product testing by disabled users has
therefore been found to be a valid and useful research method for uncovering
design exclusion and promoting the need for inclusive design within the fitness
equipment industry.
Commercial issues and challenges for equipment supplier design staff were
successfully identified through the focus group technique adopted with the
equipment supplier stakeholder group. Dominant concerns including cost,
suppression of creativity and the need to design for absolutely everybody were
found, which were similar to those reported by Keates et al. (2000) from a
cross-industry workshop investigating industry attitudes to inclusive design. The
similarity of these findings indicates the validity of the research approach and
also the potentially universal nature of these concerns. In the research with
fitness equipment supplier representatives, the focus group approach was
particularly valuable in maintaining equity across commercially competing
organisations and as a forum for discussion, as one focus group participant
noted:
“The R&D meetings themselves have been a great opportunity for
developing the I FI standards together with a joint goal. They allowed
decisions to be made as a group and concerns could be easily
voiced and discussed efficiently. ”
(Focus group participant, Session 7, 5th December 2005)
184
Utilising an expert panel has been a successful research approach to
synthesise user and equipment supplier data sets and publish a technical
standard with wide consensus. In essence, this data collection from numerous
sources and subsequent analysis of the same problem from multiple
independent viewpoints, is an approach which should increase the validity and
objectivity of the results obtained (McQueen and Knussen, 2002). The case
study and questionnaire research methods utilised have also been effective in
gathering evidence with which to consider the adoption of more inclusive
product design practices from the fitness industry. Thus with the research
methodology employed, it has been possible to develop a user-informed,
industry consortium standard and investigate its subsequent effectiveness,
although this approach is not entirely without limitations.
8.2.2 Limitations of the Research Methodology
It is acknowledged that a number of limitations exist within the selected
research methodology and methods, particularly with regard to efficacy of
sampling, statistical determinability and objectivity of participant feedback. Due
to the magnitude and diversity of the populations involved, the research
necessarily drew upon sampling methods and consequently the validity of the
findings will be dependent upon the representativeness of the sample selected
with reference to the wider population. One main sampling limitation surrounded
recruitment of participants which was impeded in some cases by lack of access
to, and availability of, suitable research subjects. For the user stakeholder
group, the sheer scale and heterogeneity of the disability population meant that
achieving a wholly representative sample was impossible. Whilst the available
population of equipment supplier design staff was more restricted in terms of
size and variability, widespread recruitment of these specialists for involvement
in the study was made problematic due to organisational structures,
geographical distances and competing organisational priorities. For the
equipment expert panel, participant recruitment was mainly limited by a
restricted population of individuals with relevant knowledge and expertise in the
185
field from which to sample. Not being able to access a wider audience for
feedback within each of these stakeholder groups may therefore have affected
the ability to reliably extrapolate the results to wider populations.
A lack of clear statistical determinability within the user, equipment supplier and
health and fitness professionals stakeholder groups led to the adoption of
research techniques which were essentially qualitative and ethnographic in
nature. Banister et al. (1994, pg 2) describe qualitative approaches as “the
interpretative study of a specified issue or problem in which the researcher is
central to the sense that is made”. In order to minimise researcher bias and
increase the study’s objectivity, an independent and multidisciplinary panel of
experts reviewed the data from user testing and focus group sessions, and a
reciprocal period of public comment for the user and equipment supplier
stakeholder groups was implemented. Whilst this approach was intended to
increase the validity of the conclusions drawn, it will not compensate for any
underlying bias present in the raw data collected. Authors such as French and
Swain (2004) and Eisma et al. (2004) suggest that disabled and older people
are often reluctant to complain or criticise products and that it is not uncommon
for users to mistakenly perceive failures in design as failures in their own
capability. Responses from disabled users during practical product testing may
therefore have been unintentionally skewed towards more positive feedback
resulting in under-reporting of barriers to access. Similarly, a need to maintain
or enhance commercial reputations may have led supplier representatives to
withhold negative information during focus group sessions and other forms of
industry feedback. This tendency towards an overly positive outlook may have
been further compounded by the development of a close working relationship
between the researcher and equipment supplier representatives throughout the
course of the study, potentially lessening the true objectivity of the feedback
received. Perhaps most apparent in the equipment supplier design staff
feedback, collected via questionnaire in the latter stages of the research, this
influence on the validity and objectivity of the data collected could have been
lessened through the use of an independent, external party to administer the
questionnaire and analyse the results.
186
8.2.3 Impact on Inclusive Design Practices
Implementation of the inclusive design standard by numerous independent
equipment supplier organisations, and within ‘live’ commercial design
environments, provides credibility and validity for the research findings.
Industrial feedback, via case study data and questionnaire responses, has
demonstrated that through use of the standard, equipment supplier design staff
have overcome inertia to inclusive developments to create more accessible
mainstream products, a transitional concept which is illustrated in Figure 8.1.
Due to the influence of external factors such as the health, social and legislative
drivers which were outlined in Chapter Two, the specific magnitude and
exclusivity of this transition as a direct result of the research is indeterminable.
However, the evidence provided by the cases studies and questionnaire
feedback does suggest a significant movement from inaccessible to more
accessible and inclusive design practices, increasingly taking equipment
provision for disabled people from rehabilitation and physiotherapy arenas into
the mainstream fitness environment.
Accessib le
Rehabilitation & Physiotherapy
FitnessEnvironment
EquipmentProvision
Inaccessib le
Legislative (DDA) + Social Change Drivers
Social Expectation + Disease Prevention
Health Agenda Drivers
Figure 8.1: Fitness industry transition towards accessible
mainstream equipment
187
The inclusive design standard has been effective in supporting the widespread
practical implementation of inclusive design, since it has allowed:
• Multiple stakeholder involvement - the ability to draw on and
consolidate diverse expertise and raise widespread awareness of
inclusive design
• Industry specific technical data - the provision of product-specific
inclusive design knowledge for the fitness industry, focussing only on
relevant technical information
• Efficient use of resources - the efficient dissemination of information,
simultaneously reaching multiple supplier organisations and design
teams
• Effective communication - the facilitation of effective communication
within multi-disciplinary design teams and the organisations within which
they work, through the use of common terminology and formal
documentation
• Respect for commercial sensitivities - the equitable sharing of
commercial information in a confidential setting, maintaining individual
intellectual property rights
• Product designer creativity - the use of performance based
requirements to allow equipment supplier design staff creativity and
product differentiation
• Cost minimisation - the consideration of inclusive design early in the
design process to minimise costs
• Informed decision making - the availability of practical and specific
information for supplier organisations to assess the business case for
implementing inclusive design.
Many of the positive impacts achieved by the inclusive design standard have
centred around addressing knowledge and communication issues. Returning to
the initial knowledge and communication gap model identified for the fitness
equipment industry in Figure 5.4, the inclusive design standard and its
development process have contributed towards filling the observed voids, as
188
indicated in Figure 8.2. The standard itself has provided equipment supplier
design staff with relevant technical data and knowledge about the design needs
of a range of disabled users, explicitly for the products they design. This has
contributed to filling the gap between equipment designers and potential users
of their products. Practical product testing during the standard’s development
process created a situation for disabled users, otherwise unlikely to do so, to
interact with a wide range of fitness equipment. Data capture concerning these
interactions has narrowed the gap between disabled users and equipment. The
process of consultation with equipment supplier design staff and also non
design related organisational representatives during the development of the
standard, has enabled misunderstandings surrounding inclusive design to be
rectified and business case information about the disabled population to be
conveyed. In this respect, the knowledge gap has been addressed between
those managing and commissioning design and equipment users.
A w a re n e s s &
B u s in es s C ase
In c lu s iv e
D e s ig n
StandardU se rs
P ra c tic a l P ro d u c t
T e s t in g
Inc lusive D esign S tandard D evelo pm ent P rocess
Designers
DesignCommissioners
Equipment
Source: Adapted from Keates and Clarkson, 2003a, pg 77-78
Figure 8.2: Impact of the inclusive design standard on the knowledge and
communication gap model for the fitness industry
189
In addition to addressing knowledge and communication issues, the inclusive
design standard and its development process have had wider outcomes at
several levels:
Disabled People - For the first time disabled people have been given a voice
in the fitness equipment design process, as the excerpt from an unsolicited
email to the author from a user following one of the practical test sessions
shows:
“Just to let you know that I thought the testing of the gym equipment
yesterday was a very worthwhile experience for me. After some
years of frustration I felt that someone was at last taking
notice of my requirements.”
(Visually-impaired tester, 28th November 2003)
The result of disabled user input has been to increase consideration of their
needs in the design of fitness equipment, initiating a transition in equipment
provision from rehabilitation and physiotherapy environments to the fitness suite
environment, as Figure 8.1 illustrates.
Equipment Supplier Design Staff - Providing a technical resource has
facilitated a new approach for product design teams within the fitness industry,
resulting in increased awareness, aptitude and uptake of inclusive design.
Dissemination of relevant information, developed in conjunction with industry
experts, has given equipment supplier design staff confidence to address this
discipline. The performance based requirements of the standard have
eliminated the need for medicalised terminology, reducing the fear factor for
design teams associated with the seemingly complicated and unfamiliar world
of disability. Additional to providing a commonality of language for all involved,
documented design standards have proved invaluable in allowing UK-based
organisations to communicate effectively with their overseas design
departments. Supplier organisations who outsource their detailed design work
to freelance designers or design consultancies have utilised the standard as
190
part of their formal product specification to these organisations. As a fixed
metric the standards are thus employable throughout the design process to aid
decision-making and as a measure of success in final testing and evaluation.
It can be seen from the results of the standard’s implementation that the
inclusive design standard has still allowed individual creativity for design teams
within equipment supplier organisations. This has provided experiential
evidence to product designers that the standard feeds predominantly into the
functional requirements of a product rather than its form. Once given basic
technical data, equipment supplier design staff have in essence followed their
own established product development processes to produce inclusive
equipment. Competent and conscientious practitioners have also begun to
transition inclusive design information into a wide range of their other product
designs.
Equipment Supplier Organisations - The inclusive design standard has
allowed equipment supplier organisations access to market research and data
on consumers which it is unlikely would otherwise have been sought. This
information has had a notable impact at an organisational level, as illustrated by
the following supplier quote:
“The IFI has been a very enjoyable scheme as it has enabled
[Supplier A] to think about things in a completely different way. It is
one of the few times that a very significant user group has had the
opportunity to influence the commercial approach both locally and
globally of the organisation. ”
(Focus group participant, Session 9, 9th October 2008)
Specifically, the standard has supported the business case for inclusive design
through raising awareness, encouraging consideration of the commercial
potential of the disability market and offering the ability to judge the cost of
manufacturing more inclusive products. Compliance with an independent and
recognised standard within the industry has offered supplier organisations a
191
unique selling point and marketing power, helping them to sell their inclusive
products and to increase return on investment in inclusive design. Through the
embodiment of new knowledge, the uptake of the inclusive design standard has
enabled the realisation of new product designs, as well as provoking changes in
organisational culture towards the inclusion of disabled people in the fitness
industry.
Fitness Facilities - Increased availability of inclusive products in the
marketplace has provided facility operators with a greater variety of equipment
purchase options, resulting in them being better able to attract disabled
members and to capitalise on this previously untapped population. Those
responsible for procurement have considered compliance with the inclusive
design standard when issuing and awarding tenders for new equipment
provision, in order to take advantage of potential commercial benefits, to
provide easily demonstrable evidence of their willingness to include the disabled
market, and also to meet their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act
(HMSO, 1995; TSO, 2005).
Fitness Industry - Exposure to the inclusive design standard has resulted in
the development of new products and their associated target markets within the
UK and international fitness industries. As well as driving current provision
forward, this technical information has also allowed equipment supplier
organisations to respond strategically to changing market needs and population
demographics. In addressing the area of inclusive design, the industry has been
able to demonstrate a collective corporate social responsibility and participate in
an industry-wide initiative towards meeting the needs of disabled people.
Compliance with the inclusive design standard in order to achieve accreditation
under the IFI’s product endorsement scheme has also contributed to the
professionalism and regulation of the industry. Specifically the standard has
provided a transparent, fair and repeatable process on which the IFI has been
able to independently base its equipment accreditations.
International Standards Development Community - Provision of a technical
standard in this new field has raised awareness of inclusive design and offered
192
experiential knowledge of developing inclusive design standards to other
standards-setting bodies. The inclusive design standard’s content is contributing
directly to international standards development in both Europe (CEN) and the
USA (ASTM). As well as offering new knowledge on the inclusive design needs
of disabled users, safety aspects of the inclusive design standard have
particularly achieved direct crossover into the mainstream fitness equipment
safety standard. The extract below, taken from prEN 957: 6 (CEN, in press),
outlines requirements surrounding the application of multiple logos onto
treadmill belts to ensure their visibility whenever the belt is in motion, reducing
the risk of inadvertently stepping onto a moving surface:
“5.11 Running surface: Permanent marking in a contrasting colour is
required on the running surface to determine if the belt is either
moving or stationary. At least one marking shall be visible from the
top view in any position of the running surface. The marking shall
have a minimum dimension of 150 mm x 50 mm and a maximum
dimension of 450 mm x 100 mm. Between two markings a minimum
space of the size of one marking shall be provided. ”
(CEN, in press, pg 10)
This criterion has been sourced from the inclusive design standard, where it
was introduced as a risk reduction measure to assist visually-impaired users.
Incorporation within the mainstream safety standard indicates direct knowledge
transfer, with this initially inclusive requirement now considered to be of benefit
to all users, disabled or otherwise.
Inclusive Design Community - Fitness equipment design represents a new
area of investigation for the inclusive design community, with the standard
making a contribution to knowledge and experiential learning on the topic. The
specific technical inclusive design data may have relevance for additional
products, but perhaps more importantly has engaged a greater number of
design professionals with inclusive design. In transforming initially negative
perceptions of this discipline, the cultural shift and new product designs
193
achieved as a result of the development of the standard offer examples of good
practice to further the wider cause of inclusive design.
Society - Standards make an impact on society at large (BSI, 2002), a
phenomenon which arguably could be demonstrated in two distinct ways for the
inclusive design standard. Firstly, as a result of developing the standard the
social consequences of design have been increasingly recognised by
representatives from the fitness equipment industry. Secondly, the increasing
availability of products designed to meet the standard has created a new, more
accessible environment for disabled people to exercise in mainstream fitness
facilities. Schleien et al. (2003) define the concept of inclusion as a three stage
process; physical integration, functional inclusion and social inclusion, whereby
legislation against discrimination leads to the removal of barriers to successful
functioning, both of which are precursors to the full social acceptance of
disabled people. By enabling disabled people’s participation in mainstream
facilities through the provision of inclusively designed equipment, functional
barriers have been removed, which according to Schleien et al. (2003) should
support further social change and inclusion.
8.3 Influences on the Effectiveness of the Inclusive
Design Standard
Based on the needs identified by disabled users during practical product testing
and subsequently encapsulated in the inclusive design standard, case study
and questionnaire feedback suggests that equipment supplier design teams
have adopted more inclusive practices. Measurement of the actual level of
inclusion achieved by these products is beyond the scope of the current work,
although newly designed features along with limited user feedback reported by
supplier representatives, suggest that access for disabled users has been
improved. The effectiveness of the standard and the ultimate level of inclusivity
that could be practicably achieved were however influenced by a number of
factors which are summarised in Figure 8.3, and which operate at user, product
194
designer and organisational levels. These key issues effectively put a design
ceiling on the inclusivity of fitness products and the adoption of inclusive design
within the fitness equipment industry.
OriginalProductDesign
tn
IS /
O V
Figure 8.3: Key influences on the effectiveness of the
inclusive design standard
195
8.3.1 Diversity of the Disability Population
Publication of the inclusive design standard and involvement of disabled users
has increased access for a range of impairment groups beyond those
previously considered by the fitness equipment industry. The inclusive design
standard could not however provide exhaustive advice and cover every
conceivable product type and user combination. As Holmes (2002, pg 13)
identified “establishing absolute guidelines for such a diverse market is difficult”.
As Figure 8.3 shows, due to the limitless variability within the disabled
population not all impairment groups could be fully catered for, with the
available user sample, conflicting user requirements and lack of information on
certain groups all having an influence.
A wholly representative sample of users was impossible to achieve in practice
due to variables including, but not confined to, the numerous types of disability,
severity of impairment, prevalence, age range and time living with disability.
Absence of a clear definition of disability, and issues surrounding classification
of impairment and self disclosure also made statistical analysis, categorisation
and selection of users difficult. Ultimately, these factors will have limited the
impairment groups represented in the inclusive design standard and
consequently therefore, those primarily considered by equipment supplier
design staff. Black (2006) argues that since the object of design research is
rarely to produce statistically valid data, the focus of recruitment for user
research should be on gathering insights from a diverse group of potential
users. Following Black’s (2006) rationale, the current research ensured that at
the highest level, the major groups of physical, sensory and cognitive
impairment were incorporated in a series of cross-sectional studies in order to
include a broad coverage of user requirements.
Generalisations obtained from the sample of users were filtered by each
member of the equipment expert panel, using their knowledge and experience
of the topic, in order to increase the validity of the findings. In considering the
data, it was clear that the panel would need to negotiate and compromise in
196
order to achieve consensus and ensure industrial uptake of the standard. As
Ekberg (undated) found in other industry case studies, an inherent difficulty of
inclusive design was that a feature of a product which was advantageous to one
user group may be the opposite for another user group, thus it would be almost
impossible for an equipment designer to develop a product that would be all
things to all people. The task of the equipment expert panel was thus to decide
on the level of compromise that was acceptable. This proved a valuable
exercise as the research was able to develop a hierarchy for prioritisation and
decision-making in these situations based upon health and safety or risk
management, commercial viability, level of inclusivity, availability of design data
and test methods for compliance. With inclusive design rarely being ‘design for
all’ in the sense that one product meets the needs of the whole population (BSI,
2005a), the standard attempted to maximise the number of people
accommodated through provision of requirements across multiple product
types, rather than focussing on a single item. Previous attempts to include
disabled people in fitness equipment design failed as only wheelchair users and
selected strength products were considered. Whilst not achieving complete
inclusivity, this research has successfully extended the range of impairment
groups and products addressed by the fitness equipment industry, bringing
associated benefits to a more diverse population of disabled users.
8.3.2 Implementation Issues for Product Designers
Evidence from the equipment supplier design staff questionnaires and case
study data indicated that production of the standard was an effective means to
support product designers’ implementation of more inclusive practices. This
data suggests that the standard has made a number of beneficial impacts,
however as Figure 8.3 illustrates, there were also several factors contributing to
an identified inclusive design ceiling. Many of these issues surrounded a lack of
appropriate timing, resources and expertise within the design process.
197
At the outset of the research, a lack of useful information regarding inclusive
design within the fitness industry was identified, with equipment supplier design
staff reporting little, if any, experience and no formal training within this field.
Supplier representatives placed importance on gaining information about
inclusive design quickly in order to shorten new product lead times to market,
therefore the decision was taken to publish basic data in a draft for development
(Stage One). In terms of strategies employed to meet the draft for development,
on the whole equipment supplier design teams were tasked with retrofitting
existing products, rather than implementing new integrated designs. This
approach was dictated for reasons relating either to the design process itself, or
alternatively, to wider organisational influences. Lack of resources, knowledge
and confidence surrounding inclusive design and exposure to the standard at
an inopportune point in the design cycle were all apparent, alongside general
organisational inertia. However, as Bennett (1999, pg 32) reports, a retrofit
approach is often not sufficient to accommodate disabled people: “the refitting
of standard fitness equipment doesn’t go far enough for some... Equipment of
different basic construction has to be introduced into the fitness club to make
exercise accessible to these people”. In contrast, Petrick (2002, pg 4) identifies
this as a beneficial approach, as “modifying existing equipment will be faster
and cheaper than waiting for the new machines, and will allow more clubs to
provide services to more people”. The draft for development and associated
retrofitting approach were always intended as short term solutions, with the
primary aim of educating and raising awareness of inclusive design across the
fitness equipment industry. The equipment supplier design teams’ response to
the draft for development represented the inclusive modifications that were
reasonable to achieve with the requirement of a short lead time to market,
rather than achieving more widespread product changes which would be
addressed by the inclusive design standard (Stage Two).
As a consequence of the increased level of awareness achieved by the draft for
development, equipment supplier design staff were better placed to respond to
the requirements of the inclusive design standard and to build on the lessons
learned. The inclusive design standard offered access to more comprehensive
and specific technical data relating to the needs of disabled users for utilisation
198
within product design. Alongside provision of more complete information,
involving equipment supplier design staff in the development of the standard
ensured that they were more engaged with the process and were thus able to
progress their knowledge, skills and expertise surrounding inclusive design. The
longer lead-in time associated with the inclusive design standard compared to
its earlier counterpart, gave greater product development time, allowing design
teams the potential to work on products that were at an appropriate point in the
design cycle for the most effective implementation of the standard’s
requirements. For those equipment supplier design staff able to utilise the
standard to impact in the earliest stages of new product development, more
scope was available for making fundamental design changes and options for
technological and manufacturing improvements were increased. In combination,
these factors allowed equipment supplier design staff to adopt different
strategies to meet the inclusive design standard, going beyond modified and
retrofitted equipment to provide more integrated solutions.
Although products complying with the inclusive design standard have more built
in features to meet the needs of disabled people than those adhering to the
draft for development, or those available prior to the onset of the research,
wholly inclusive products have yet to be achieved throughout the industry. BSI
(2005a, pg 11) identify three basic strategies for implementing inclusive product
development; firstly developing “add-on options”, secondly upgrading relatively
quickly through “superficial changes”, or thirdly the complete “rethink of all
design aspects” of existing products. Evidence suggests that equipment
supplier design staff initially implementing strategies involving add-on options
have now been able to progress, on the whole, beyond this basic approach
towards the intermediate, and in some cases, towards the latter strategies
identified by BSI (2005a). However, whilst progress has been made, design
teams have not as yet been able to achieve seamless and complete integration
of inclusive requirements. In many instances, inclusively designed products are
presented as either a completely distinct and separate product range, or
purchasers are offered a choice between a standard or inclusive version of the
same base product, often with a price premium attached to the latter. One factor
influencing this approach relates to the phasing of product design cycles. Due to
199
the 5 to 10 year cycles typical of the fitness equipment industry, some
organisations are still not in a suitable position for their design teams to
integrate inclusive features from the outset of a completely new product
development period. Nonetheless, the incremental product improvements which
take place during these full design cycles, to effectively upgrade current models,
have allowed equipment supplier design staff to add inclusive features. BSI
(2005a, pg 37) suggest that this staged approach, “might go some way towards
increasing accessibility, and be a desirable and less costly first step on the
journey towards inclusivity”, a strategy which has undoubtedly been witnessed
within the fitness equipment industry. The gradual upgrading of products offers
opportunities for ongoing integration and sustainability, as successful inclusive
design features are retained and become increasingly incorporated into
accepted base products. Responses from the equipment supplier design staff
questionnaires indicate that this is beginning to occur within some
organisations. Infusion of inclusive design information into mainstream product
design over time should ensure that disabled peoples’ needs become
progressively embraced and integrated into the fitness equipment industry.
Providing product designers with relevant and practical information in the form
of the inclusive design standard has therefore been valuable for raising
awareness and initiating more inclusive approaches to fitness equipment
design. Despite implementation issues, equipment supplier design staff have
progressively utilised more integrated strategies in order to raise the inclusive
design ceiling previously apparent in the industry, which represents an
important step towards the creation of truly inclusive fitness products.
8.3.3 Influence of Organisational Culture
When investigating levels of inclusivity, equipment supplier design staff should
not be considered in isolation as their working practices and priorities are often
dictated by the commercial organisations within which they operate. Such
organisational factors influencing the effectiveness of the inclusive design
standard are summarised in Figure 8.3, and centre mainly around knowledge of
200
inclusive design, organisational buy-in and support, and business case issues
all dictating the level of investment sanctioned in inclusive product
developments.
Prior to the draft for development, no readily available inclusive design
information existed specifically for the fitness equipment industry.
Consequently, a general lack of awareness and understanding of the topic was
apparent, as reported by both focus group participants and questionnaire
feedback. Initial misconceptions around the belief that inclusive design meant
designing for every conceivable user alongside concerns about cost and market
appeal of inclusive products were noted. This lack of confidence and experience
with inclusive design was also apparent with early attempts to implement the
draft for development, evidenced by the retrofitting of existing products as a
straightforward, relatively cost-effective and low risk approach requiring little
long-term organisational commitment. However, the implementation of the draft
for development was successful in raising awareness across all levels of the
companies involved and in helping supplier representatives to begin to address
issues and barriers, thus starting a process of organisational change towards
more inclusive design practices. As one questionnaire respondent identified:
"Most of the issues have been internal, where designers or sales
people questioned the need for some of the requirements. This was
mainly due to not thinking about the disabled population as a whole
and all the varied disabilities this encompasses. Once explained, this
better understanding was then more widely accepted and the spirit of
'inclusivity' became an asset rather than a hindrance."
(UK Service Manager)
Although the draft for development was instrumental in lifting the original
inclusive design ceiling, it was not sufficiently detailed or comprehensive to
bring about significant product changes. The subsequent publication of the
inclusive design standard provided a greater depth of information and in doing
so addressed some of the early organisational issues to secure more long-term
201
commitment to inclusive design. In particular, the involvement of equipment
supplier design staff and also non-design related supplier representatives in the
development of the standard, provided opportunities for education and
feedback, to ensure that organisational issues were addressed.
Confidence in the viability and appropriateness of the standard was secured
through the use of a panel of independent experts and also practical testing of
existing products by disabled users. The latter particularly demonstrated to
supplier representatives the existence of design exclusion and provided valid
and trusted data on which to act, as one focus group participant outlined:
‘‘The independent testing by individuals who have specific health
conditions is vital in proving the actual fitness for purpose. We would
not ask for any changes to this process. ”
(Focus group participant, Session 8, 13th March 2008)
Consequently, equipment supplier design staff involved with the standard’s
development process have gone beyond a basic retrofit approach and have
implemented the inclusive design standard through more integrated strategies.
However, significant implementation issues surrounding inclusive design
remain, with the most commonly reported reason for reticence to change being
the perceived and real costs of adopting inclusive design, particularly in terms of
high initial outlay and poor return on investment due to limited market size. The
result of these issues is that some organisations have not been prepared to
invest in inclusive product changes or the full integration of inclusive features.
Organisational structures within the fitness industry have also caused additional
barriers to adoption of the inclusive design standard. In particular, for those with
non-UK based parent companies and design teams, the process of educating
the wider organisation and convincing senior management to adopt an inclusive
design approach was problematic. In competing with other organisational
priorities, UK-based personnel found difficulties in persuading relevant company
decision makers to divert resources towards inclusive design, encountering
202
misconceptions and reluctance to venture into what was seen as a relatively
high-risk, new and untested market. However, feedback from the equipment
supplier design staff questionnaire suggests that the written nature of the
inclusive design standard was helpful in these situations in establishing
common terminology, specific parameters and grounds for discussion. The
standard itself provided detailed and comprehensive design information, from
which design commissioners were better able to make a more complete
assessment of the implications of inclusive design for their companies.
Specifically, the standard provided information from which costs and resources
could be calculated. The performance-based nature of the requirements was
particularly valuable in giving organisations control over the level of commitment
and investment needed to achieve compliance, through allowing a range of
solutions from low-cost retrofits through to higher-cost options involving
significant retooling, whilst still achieving more integrated features for disabled
users. Further drivers for overcoming this organisational inertia were the ability
to access new markets as well as the perceived prestige and potential
marketability that compliance with the standard could attract. Increasing
consumer confidence through attaining IFI Accreditation, of which compliance
with the inclusive design standard forms an integral part, alongside the
increasingly global recognition of the standard’s content, has allowed relatively
small design teams or geographically distant individuals to influence senior
management to begin to invest in inclusive design. In this respect, the standard
has been able to dually impact on realistic cost assessments and also provide
increased profile and brand building potential for those organisations wishing to
take up inclusive design practices.
Provision of the inclusive design standard has been an effective means to
secure organisational buy-in from a number of fitness equipment suppliers
through the promotion of awareness, knowledge and the business case for
inclusive design. The resulting investment in product developments made by
these organisations has raised the inclusive design ceiling, moving them
beyond simple retrofit approaches to provide more comprehensive and
integrated features which better meet the needs of disabled users. Through a
process of education and awareness-raising, facilitated by the provision of
203
technical design data, it has therefore been possible to overcome organisational
inertia and initiate a cultural change within the fitness equipment industry
towards more inclusive design practices.
8.4 Sustaining Inclusive Design Practices
To sustain the inclusive product developments instigated by equipment supplier
design staff and continue organisational engagement with inclusive design, it
will be imperative to build upon those factors which have successfully raised the
inclusive design ceiling and provided examples of good practice thus far.
Having already established methods for incorporating inclusive requirements,
lessons learnt should make future integration of these approaches more
streamlined within the product development processes of the equipment
supplier design teams involved. It is likely, however, that the long-term
sustainability of inclusive practices will be chiefly determined by profitability, as
one focus group participant outlines:
“Funding for change is sales driven, therefore if sales go up so will
the funding, and research and development of that area”.
(Focus group participant, Session 3, 21st January 2004)
To maximise profitability it will be necessary to maintain the inclusive design
standard to ensure its continuing relevance, usefulness and to incorporate any
new examples of best practice as they are discovered. Providing equipment
supplier design staff with ongoing access to pertinent data will enable them to
utilise their innate design skills and creativity to the fullest extent in order to
construct well designed and appealing products for the widest range of users.
Maximising market potential and driving sales in this manner will support the
business case and justification for fitness equipment supplier organisations’
continuing investment to meet the requirements of the inclusive design
204
standard, and to adopt increasingly integrated and cost-effective development
strategies.
Equipment supplier design staff are now engaged with the concept and practice
of inclusive design through the information contained within the standard. To
capitalise on this interest, as the necessarily product-focused standard is not
intended to be used completely in isolation, the next step may be to encourage
these design teams to explore complementary user-centred methods.
Approaches which specifically involve working with and understanding users,
such as more extensive prototype testing or user observation, may be
particularly beneficial for expanding product designers’ overall knowledge, skills
and expertise, as well as enabling the detailed design of individual products to
be refined. Introduction to inclusive design through the development of the
standard has alleviated many of the initial fears and misconceptions
experienced by both equipment supplier design staff and the organisations
within which they operate. Consequently, these groups should be better placed
to continue to consider and to view interaction with disabled users as a valuable
asset in their design processes.
8.5 Conclusion
Through consideration of the original hypothesis and the five research
objectives set to examine this initial supposition, the current chapter has drawn
together pertinent findings and conclusions concerning the efficacy of the
research approach and the effectiveness of the inclusive design standard within
the fitness equipment industry. Impacts of user involvement, sampling and the
diversity of the disability population have been considered from a user
perspective, whilst the effects of timing and the provision of comprehensive
inclusive design information on product development have been examined for
equipment supplier design staff. The importance of awareness-raising,
education and the business case in gaining organisational support and
investment for inclusive design have been outlined, alongside the wider impact
205
of the standard on the fitness industry, international standards development and
inclusive design communities. Despite numerous factors influencing the
effectiveness of the inclusive design standard and the level of inclusivity
achieved, this chapter has been able to demonstrate a positive cultural change
towards the needs of disabled people within the fitness equipment industry
through increasingly integrated product development strategies. Lastly, to
further raise the inclusive design ceiling, suggestions for sustaining inclusive
design practices and continuing industrial engagement with the approach have
been presented. The following chapter concludes the thesis by re-stating the
major research findings in relation to their original contribution to knowledge and
also provides suggestions for future work.
206
Chapter Nine: Key Conclusions and Contribution to Knowledge
9.1 Introduction
The inclusive design of mainstream commercial fitness equipment is a newly
emerging field, instigated and developed in part by the current research, which
has investigated the provision of a technical design standard as a methodology
to introduce this discipline to the industry. In terms of supporting the adoption of
inclusive design practices by equipment supplier design staff and the
organisations within which they work, three broad and substantive conclusions
can be drawn from the study.
Firstly, that through ethnographic research techniques it has been possible to
develop a comprehensive, user-informed consortium standard, valuable to the
fitness equipment design industry.
Secondly, that consolidating key principles into a written manuscript has
provided specialist knowledge to equipment supplier design staff, educating and
increasingly enabling them to overcome barriers and better respond to the
needs of disabled people within their product designs.
Thirdly, organisational factors play a role in influencing the uptake of inclusive
design practices, and successful adoption has required a significant cultural
change from the supplier organisations involved, partly initiated by a process of
education and information provision with which to assess resources and make
business case decisions.
This chapter reviews these major research findings in relation to their original
contribution to knowledge and the work of other authors. Finally, implications
and opportunities for future work are presented to draw the thesis to a close.
207
9.2 Key Conclusions and Original Contribution to
Knowledge
Comparison of the research contained within this thesis to that of other authors
enables consideration of the originality of the study to be made and also allows
the key research findings to be placed within a wider context.
9.2.1 Standardisation of Diversity
Employing ethnographic and independent research methods with multiple
stakeholder groups uncovered widespread design exclusion within commercial
fitness equipment, with a lack of pre-existing inclusive design information
identified as a key contributory factor. Consequently, the directly expressed and
latent needs of a wide range of disabled users have been captured through
practical product testing, with key themes drawn out and consolidated to yield
detailed new insights into the needs of disabled users concerning fitness
equipment. Expert evaluation of the data, via a structured process of
consultation and negotiation with industry professionals, validated the
information and through bringing together equipment supplier design staff to
consider this new area and by taking cognisance of their needs, led to a
standard with wide consensus on its content.
The information and knowledge contained within the inclusive design standard
provides a detailed understanding of the issues facing disabled users of fitness
equipment and recommends ways of improving the interaction of disabled
people with such products. It makes recommendations as to the design needs
of the disabled population beyond those previously addressed by the fitness
industry, both in terms of range of users and product types, providing new
knowledge to aid in the design of products and the accessing of new markets.
This is a major contribution to knowledge in this area for the fitness equipment
industry.
208
Despite the diversity of the disabled population limiting the level of inclusion
achievable, ethnographic research methods involving a considerable sample of
users, have for the first time enabled a broad group of disabled people to
influence the design of commercial fitness equipment. By including this
significant sector of the population and considering their design needs, case
studies show strong evidence that the inclusive design standard has facilitated
the adoption of new product features and a transition of equipment provision for
disabled people from medical to mainstream fitness environments. As well as
being valuable to the fitness equipment industry in adopting inclusive design
practices, by offering healthy lifestyle choices and maximising self-sufficiency
for disabled users the standard has been able to directly address some of the
concerns of authors such as Bennett (1999) and McGough (1999) surrounding
not only specific equipment features but also the wider social inclusion of
disabled people within the fitness environment.
9.2.2 Provision of Inclusive Design Resources
Product designers working within fitness equipment organisations are now
routinely engaged with inclusive design as a result of the specialist knowledge
provided in the inclusive design standard, which has offered information not
only to identify, but also to minimise design exclusion within their products. This
outcome legitimises the views of authors such as Dong et al. (2003b) and
Keates and Clarkson (2003a), who have stressed the importance of providing
tools for the design community to address the needs of the whole population,
and suggests that technical standards may represent a viable resource to this
end. Misconceptions such as the suppression of creativity, or the need to
design for absolutely everybody, which align with those found in other industries
by Keates et al. (2000) and the Disability Rights Commission (2001), have been
overcome in this research by the provision of an educational specification for
good inclusive design. By adding user information to guide the functional
aspects of a product, rather than modifying conventional product development
processes, equipment supplier design teams have remained free to use their
own inherent skills to create its form whilst concurrently developing new
209
expertise around inclusive design. These substantial contributions to knowledge
and fresh inputs into the design process have given product designers within
the fitness industry a better understanding of the needs of the people who will
use their products, and broadened the scope of their approach, resulting in
inspiration and focus for new, more inclusive, product designs. Progressively
integrating inclusivity into mainstream fitness equipment in this manner has
made a contribution towards the ultimate goal reported by Coleman et al. (2004,
pg 1) “to ensure that, in so far as possible, the needs of the whole population
are met through mainstream markets”. It has thus been shown that inclusive
design does not need to be a niche activity but can be incorporated into
conventional product design processes by design teams working within
commercial organisations. Generally, the exclusion of disabled people from
mainstream design appears to be as a result of a lack of awareness and
information rather than a deliberate strategy on the part of designers and the
organisations they work for. By providing fitness equipment designers with
relevant user data, particularly at the formative stages of the design process,
the result has been the successful adoption of inclusive design practices,
supporting the premise that education and information are key to the uptake of
inclusive design (Access Association, 2010).
9.2.3 Influencing Organisational Change
Established industry attitudes and organisational barriers to the uptake of
inclusive design, for example prohibitive costs, small perceived market size and
unrealistic design expectations, have been overcome in the fitness industry
through the provision of information and education in the form of the inclusive
design standard. This is the first evidenced demonstration of a significant shift in
product designers’ practices and also organisational culture towards inclusive
design within the fitness equipment industry.
In addition to providing specialist technical knowledge to equipment supplier
design staff, the information contained within the inclusive design standard has
210
also offered a previously unavailable resource to support and inform wider
organisational practices. The standard has better equipped design managers to
calculate costs and resources with which to consider the feasibility of adopting
inclusive design. As a result of these more informed business case decisions,
company representatives responsible for commissioning design have been
increasingly willing to sanction equipment supplier design staff to implement
inclusive design practices. Organisational employees with no innate link to the
design process, such as those in marketing or sales, have benefitted from these
new inclusive product offerings to access a previously untapped market sector,
and have also capitalised on compliance with the standard as a means to gain
external recognition and marketability to increase return on investment for these
products. For the first time, raising awareness and demonstrating the relevance
of inclusive design across multiple facets of fitness equipment supplier
organisations has been achieved, bringing together differing interests within
these companies to collectively support the adoption of more inclusive design
practices. Consequently, cultural change has occurred at an organisational level
within the fitness equipment supply industry, resulting in a commitment to invest
in new, more accessible product designs and suggesting a pivotal role for these
organisational factors in influencing the uptake of inclusive design practices by
equipment supplier design staff. The importance of these transformations
should not be underestimated, with the research findings supporting Coleman et
al.'s (2004, pg 3) view that in order to get buy-in to inclusive design “cultural
change is an essential and central feature”. Evidence from the fitness industry
suggests therefore, that as well as assisting product designers with practical
implementation, provision of relevant design information can support awareness
raising and cultural change, and thus be an effective means of compelling
whole organisations to engage with inclusive design. This major contribution to
knowledge also endorses Dong et al.'s (2003a, pg 106) view that “a change of
attitudes towards people with disabilities by people commissioning, as well as
performing, design and the provision of design support tools are necessary to
bring inclusive design theory and practice closer together”. Within the fitness
equipment industry, the inclusive design standard has impacted at both
organisational and product designer level, and has been able to turn inclusive
211
design theory into practice, manifest in the development of new products in the
mainstream marketplace.
9.3 Possibilities for Future Work
With the inclusive design standard established, opportunities now emerge to
further increase the effectiveness of the research. It will be important to
continue to raise awareness and aptitude for inclusive design within the fitness
industry and to replicate the research methodology within other industries in
order to validate the approach. Effort may be directed towards standards
education, conceivably through training courses, seminars and workshops, or
the development of complementary guidance notes to incorporate examples of
best practice and more detailed explanations on the application of inclusive
requirements. It may also be beneficial to compare the uptake of an inclusive
design standard by organisation-based design staff against use by freelance
designers operating outside of a formal institutional structure, in order to further
investigate the influence and nature of wider organisational factors.
In order to sustain the impact and relevance of the research findings to fitness
equipment design, further enquiry will be required to review and maintain the
standard. It will be necessary to keep its content up to date, incorporating new
technologies and products yet to be developed. It may also be beneficial to
expand its scope to include associated products, such as those specifically for
children, or outdoor fitness equipment. As part of a programme of continuous
improvement, it may also be useful to evaluate current levels of design
exclusion in inclusive fitness products in order to feed this information back into,
and further enhance, the inclusive design standard.
Focussing on the long-term impact of the standard, there may be opportunities
to consider the sustainability and uptake of these new inclusive products in the
marketplace. This could involve an assessment of whether inclusive design has
continued to be a valued and viable commercial approach for both equipment
212
supplier design staff and also the organisations within which they work, or
alternatively from the perspective of facility operators, whether investment in
inclusive products has encouraged a greater membership of disabled people. It
may also be possible to investigate whether removing design exclusion from
fitness products has increased participation in physical fitness by disabled
people, and whether this has made a subsequent impact on the general health
and social inclusion of the wider disability population.
9.4 Conclusion
Effective implementation of inclusive design has for the first time been achieved
in the fitness equipment industry through provision of the inclusive design
standard, which offers evidence to substantiate the research hypothesis that:
Producing a user-informed, consortium standard is an effective means to
support designers in adopting inclusive design practices for commercial
fitness equipment.
By providing a substantial contribution to knowledge and technical guidance for
equipment supplier design teams, therefore enabling disabled people to impact
on the design process, the inclusive design standard has also been beneficial in
facilitating organisational change towards considering the needs of a wider
population. In combination, provision of this specialist knowledge, along with
influencing organisational attitudes, has led to new ways of working and
inclusive developments in mainstream fitness equipment design, thus indicating
the efficacy of the research approach in promoting inclusive design practice by
developing a consortium standard.
213
References
Able Magazine (2005). Fitness for Life. Able, September/October 2005, 41-42.
Access4Fitness (2001a). The access4fltness report - Access for Disabled
People to UK Fitness Facilities. Glamorgan: PowerSport International.
Access4Fitness (2001b). PowerSport launches disabled access information
service for fitness centres. Press Release 13 September 2001. Glamorgan:
PowerSport International.
Access Association (2010). Access versus design? Access: The inclusive
design journal for professionals, Issue 37, Spring 2010,15-17.
Age Concern (2008). Your health and home: What to expect as you get older,
Leaflet ACIG28, July 2008 [online]. Devon: Age Concern. Available at:
www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/info_guide_28.asp [Accessed 02
September 2008].
Alessandri, N. (2000). Editorial. Technogym Wellness Magazine, 2(3), 3.
Allen, J. (2002). Some problems of designing for augmentative and alternative
communication users: An enquiry through practical design activity. Ph.D. thesis,
Loughborough University.
AMA Research (2005). Fitness Equipment Market UK 2005. Cheltenham: AMA
Research.
American National Standards Institute (2005). United States Standards
Strategy. New York: American National Standards Institute.
214
American Society for Testing and Materials (undated a). The Handbook of
Standardization - A Guide to Understanding Standards Development Today.
Pennsylvania: ASTM International.
American Society for Testing and Materials (undated b). What is ASTM
International? [online]. Pennsylvania: ASTM International. Available at:
http://www.astm.org/GLOBAL/imagesA/Vhat_is_ASTM_English.pdf [Accessed
13 January 2008].
Badley, E.M. and Tennant, A. (1997). Epidemiology. In Goodwill, C.J.,
Chamberlain, M.A. and Evans, C. (Eds) (1997). Rehabilitation of the Physically
Disabled Adult. 2nd Edition. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.
Baker, A. (2006). Chapter 2: Initiatives, ‘Raising the bar’ to achieve inclusive
fitness equipment. DDA Leisure Directory 2006/7, 3, 24-27. Surrey: Stable
Publishing.
Baker, M. (2001). Fit for Life. Public Service and Local Government, Community
Care, November 2001, 64-65. London: BWS.
Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. and Tindall, C. (1994).
Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A research guide. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Barker, P. and Fraser, J. (2000). Sign Design Guide: A guide to inclusive
signage. London: JMU and the Sign Design Society.
Bennett, R.P. (1999). Equipping for People with Disabilities. Fitness
Management Magazine, 15(8), 32-33.
Bennett, R.P. (2000). Starting a Program for the Disabled. Fitness Management
Magazine, 16(4), 30-32.
215
Black, A. (2006). User Centred Design [online]. London: Design Council.
Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.Uk/20071204130131/http://www.designc
ouncil.org.uk/en/About-Design/Design-Techniques/User-centred-design-/
[Accessed 12 December 2006].
Bradtmiller, B. (2000). Anthropometry for Persons with Disabilities: Needs in the
Twenty-First Century. Proceedings ofRESNA 2000, Orlando, Florida, 28th June
- 2nd July 2000, 543-548. Virginia: Association for the Advancement of
Rehabilitation Technology.
British Standards Institution (1997a). BS EN 957-1:1997. Stationary training
equipment - Part 1: General safety requirements and test methods. London:
BSI.
British Standards Institution (1997b). BS 0-2:1997. A standard for standards-
Part 2: Recommendations for committee procedures. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (1997c). BS 0-1:1997. A standard for standards -
Part 1: Guide to the context, aims and general principles. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2000). Introduction to Standards - A BSI Library
Guide. January 2000, 1st Edition. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2001). BS 8300:2001. Design of buildings and their
approaches to meet the needs of disabled people. Code of practice. London:
BSI.
British Standards Institution (2002). All About Standards - Who needs
standards and why are they important? [online]. London: BSI. Available at:
www.bsi-global.com/AII+About+Standards/What+Are+Standards/ [Accessed 09
July 2003].
216
British Standards Institution (2005a). BS 7000-6:2005. Design management
systems - Part 6: Managing inclusive design - Guide. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2005b). BS 0-1:2005. A standard for standards -
Part 1: Development of standards - Specification. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2005c). The BSI guide to standardization - Section
1: Working with British Standards - 3: How are standards created? London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2005d>). The BSI guide to standardization - Section
1: Working with British Standards - 4: What are the different types of standard?
London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2005e). BS 0-2:2005. A standard for standards -
Part 2: Structure and drafting - Requirements and guidance. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2005f). The BSI guide to standardization - Section
2: Rules for the structure, drafting and presentation of British Standards.
London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2005g). The BSI guide to standardization - Section
1: Working with British Standards - 5: What do I need to know to get involved?
London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2005h). BS EN 957-1:2005. Stationary training
equipment - Part 1: General safety requirements and test methods. London:
BSI.
British Standards Institution (undated a). Introducing standards. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (undated b). White Paper - Standardization as a
business investment. London: BSI.
217
Bureau de Normalisation du Quebec (undated). Standards Development
[online]. Available at: http://www.bnq.qc.ca/en/norme/index.html [Accessed 07
December 2005].
Canadian Standards Association (undated). Standards Development-
Development Process [online]. Available at:
http://www.csa.ca/cm/ca/en/standards-development/development-process
[Accessed 07 December 2005].
Cardoso, C., Keates, S. and Clarkson, J. (2002). Design for Inclusivity:
Assessing the Accessibility of Everyday Products. In 1st Cambridge Workshop
on Universal Access and Assistive Technology (CWUAAT ’02), Trinity Hall,
Cambridge, 1, 47-51.
Catton, S. (2008). IFI Recognised for Innovation [online]. Available at:
http://www.inclusivefitness.org/inclusive-fitness-initiative/news/184/ [Accessed
23 October 2008].
Choi, Y.S., Yi, J.S., Law, C.M. and Jacko, J.A. (2006). Are “universal design
resources” designed for designers? ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Assistive
Technologies; Proceedings of the &h International ACM SIGACCESS
Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Portland, Oregon, 23rd - 25th
October 2006, 87-94. New York: ACM.
Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Hosking, I. and Waller, S. (Eds) (2007,). Inclusive
Design Toolkit. Cambridge: Engineering Design Centre.
Clarkson, J., Dong, H. and Keates, S. (2003). Quantifying Design Exclusion. In
Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S. and Lebbon, C. (Eds) (2003) Inclusive
Design: design for the whole population, 423-436. London: Springer-Verlag.
218
Clarkson, P. J., Keates, S., Coleman, R., Lebbon, C. and Johnston, M. (2000).
A Model for Inclusive Design. In Sivaloganathan, S. (Ed) Proceedings of
Engineering Design Conference 2000, Brunei University, 27th -29th June 2000,
203-212. Uxbridge: Professional Engineering Publishing.
Clowes, D. (2007). PhD Request for information [email]. Personal
communication to Dawn Hughes [Sent 02 May 2007].
Coleman, R. (2001a). Living Longer: the new context for design. London:
Design Council.
Coleman, R. (2001b). Designing for our future selves. In Preiser, W.F.E. and
Ostroff, E. (Eds) (2001). Universal Design Handbook, 4.1-4.25. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Coleman, R., Clarkson, J. and Keates, S. (2004). Inclusive Design in Practice-
Developing a new British Standard. In Sandhu, J. (Ed) (2004). Designing for the
21st Century III; An international conference on universal design, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 8th - 12th December 2004. Herefordshire: Inclusive Design Research
Associates Ltd.
Conviser, J.M. (2000). Expand the Healthcare Continuum. Fitness Management
Magazine, 16(2), 30-32.
Davies, H.G. (2004). A History of the UK Fitness Industry [email]. Personal
communication to Dawn Hughes [Sent 21 July 2004].
Department for Culture, Media and Sport/Strategy Unit (2002). Game Plan: a
strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives. A
joint DCMS/Strategy Unit Report - December 2002. London: Cabinet Office.
Disability Rights Commission (2001). Inclusive design - products that are easy
for everybody to use. Ref DRC/TP/IC. Stratford Upon Avon: DRC.
219
Disabled Motorist (2004). Fit for all. Disabled Motorist Magazine, March 2004,
22-26.
Dong, H., Keates, S. and Clarkson, J. (2002). Inclusive Design Diagnosis Based
on the ONS Scales. In 1st Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and
Assistive Technology (CWUAAT ’02), Trinity Hall, Cambridge, 25th - 27th March
2002, UED/C - EDC/TR117, 47-51.
Dong, H., Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J. and Cassim, J. (2003a). Implementing
inclusive design: the discrepancy between theory and practice. In Carbonell, N.
and Stephanidis, C. (Eds) (2003). Universal Access: Theoretical Perspectives,
Practice and Experience, LNCS 2615, 106-117. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Dong. H., Keates, S. and Clarkson, P.J. (2003b). Designers and Manufacturers’
Perspectives on Inclusive/Universal Design. ICED’03, 14th International
Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, Sweden, 19th -21st August,
2003, 511-512. Glasgow: The Design Society.
Easton, C. (2003a). First steps to inclusion. Recreation - The Journal of
Institute of Sport and Recreation Management, July/August 2003, 62(6), 18-20.
Easton, C. (2003b). Forward Roll. Health Club Management Magazine, October
2003, 72-75.
Easton, C. (2004). The Right Language. Health Club Management Magazine,
August 2004, 24-25.
Easton, C. (2005a). The DDA and leisure centres. Recreation - The Journal of
Institute of Sport and Recreation Management, October 2005, 64(8), 6-7.
Easton, C. (2005b). Fitness for All. Recreation - The Journal of Institute of
Sport and Recreation Management, November 2005, 64(9), 38-43.
220
Easton. C. (2009). Buying into Inclusion. Health Club Management Magazine
June 2009, 42-44.
Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Tiwari, L. and Newell, A.F.
(2004). Early user involvement in the development of information technology-
related products for older people. Universal Access in the Information Society,
3(2), 131-140.
Ekberg, J. (undated). Basic Design for all Principles [online]. Paper No 2
INCLUDE (Inclusion of disabled and elderly people in telematics), programme
of the European Commission. Available at: http://www.stakes.fi/include
[Accessed 18 June 2003].
English Federation of Disability Sport (2000). Facilitating access for disabled
people to fitness equipment in local authority sector sports facilities in England.
A synopsis presented to Sport England’s Lottery Fund panel. Manchester:
EFDS.
English Federation of Disability Sport (2002). EFDS Inclusive Fitness Initiative.
Inclusion - the way forward for fitness. Fed-News, EFDS Yorkshire, December
2002, 3-4. Manchester: EFDS.
English Federation of Disability Sport (2005). Inclusive Fitness Review.
Inclusive Sport, Summer 2005,17-25.
European Committee for Standardization (in press). prEN 957-6. Stationary
training equipment — Part 6: Treadmills, additional specific safety requirements
and test methods. Brussels: CEN. Expected publication 2011.
Finch, N., Lawton, D., Williams, J. and Sloper, P. (2001). Disability Survey
2000: Survey of young people with a disability and sport. London: Sport
England.
221
First Research Inc. (2008). Fitness Equipment Industry Profile. Texas: First
Research Inc.
Fitness Industry Association (2004). Fitness Industry Association Supplier
Members - Fitness Equipment. London: FIA.
French, S. and Swain, J. (2004). Whose tragedy? Towards a personal non
tragedy view of disability. In Swain, J., French, S., Barnes, C. and Thomas, C.
(Eds) (2004). Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments. London: Sage
Publications Ltd, 34-40.
Gary Jelen Sports Foundation (1999a). Report on the findings of the national
survey into access to fitness facilities for disabled people. GJSF in association
with EFDS. Sheffield: Montgomery Leisure Services.
Gary Jelen Sports Foundation (1999b). Current equipment suppliers and
manufacturers - European Fitness Convention, Earls Court, 4th March 1999.
Internal report/document. GJSF Project Management Group. Sheffield:
Montgomery Leisure Services.
Goodwin, D.L. and Compton, S.G. (2004). Physical Activity Experiences of
Women Aging With Disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21, 122-
138.
Goswami, A. (1997). Anthropometry of People with Disability. In Kumar, S. (Ed)
(1997). Perspectives in Rehabilitation Ergonomics. Pennsylvania: Taylor and
Francis Ltd.
Hartley, A. (2004). Tools of the Trade. Fiealth Club Management Magazine,
February 2004, 59-61.
Health Education Authority (1997). Active for Life - Guidelines: promoting
physical activity with people with disabilities. London: Health Education
Authority.
222
Heath, G.W. and Fentem, P.H. (1997). Physical Activity Among Persons with
Disabilities - A public health perspective. Exercise and Sports Sciences
Reviews, 25, 195-234.
Highlen, P.S. and Finley, H.C. (1996). Doing qualitative analysis. In Leong,
F.T.L. and Austin, J.T. (Eds) (1996). The psychology research handbook: A
guide for graduate students and research assistants. New York: Sage
Publications, 177-192.
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1995). Disability Discrimination Act 1995 -
Elizabeth II, Chapter 50. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Hoffmann, V.P., Ahl, J., Meyers, A., Schuh, L., Shults, K.S., Collins, D.M. and
Jensen, L. (2005). Wellness Intervention for Patients with Serious and
Persistent Mental Illness. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66(12), 1576-1579.
Hollis, L. (2003). All Together Now. Health & Fitness Magazine, April 2003, 28.
Holmes, S. (2002). Innovation, Inclusion and Ambition. Leisure Manager
Magazine, November 2002, 12-13.
Houldey, M. (2003). Must try harder. Life Fitness Magazine, Spring 2003, 20-21.
International Organization for Standardization (2003a). You know ISO... but
what are PAS, TS and IWA? [online]. Available at
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/proc/deliv [Accessed
09 December 2005].
International Organization for Standardization (2003b). Stages of the
development of International Standards [online]. Available at:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/proc.html [Accessed
07 December 2005].
223
International Organization for Standardization (2003c). How are ISO standards
developed? [online]. Available at:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/how.html [Accessed
07 December 2005].
International Organization for Standardization (2003d). Who does the work?
[online]. Available at:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/who.html [Accessed
07 December 2005].
International Organization for Standardization (2005). ISO 20957-1:2005.
Stationary training equipment - Part 1: General safety requirements and test
methods. Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission (2004). ISO/IEC Guide 2, Standardization and related activities -
General vocabulary. Geneva: ISO.
Kailes, J.l. (2003). Aging with Disability [online]. California: June Isaacson
Kailes. Available at http://www.jik.com/awdrtcawd.html [Accessed 05 October
2006].
Keates, S. and Clarkson, J. (2003a). Countering design exclusion - An
introduction to inclusive design. London: Springer-Verlag.
Keates, S. and Clarkson, J. (2003b). Countering Design Exclusion Through
Inclusive Design. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Universal Usability,
Vancouver, Canada, 10th - 11th November 2003, 69-76. New York: Association
for Computing Machinery.
Keates, S., Lebbon, C. and Clarkson, J. (2000). Investigating industry attitudes
to universal design. Proceedings ofRESNA 2000, Orlando, Florida, 28th June -
2nd July 2000, 276-278. Virginia: Association for the Advancement of
Rehabilitation Technology.
224
Leisure Industry Week (2005). Your Guide to Leisure industry Week 2005 -
Show Guide. 20th - 22nd September 2005, NEC Birmingham. Hertfordshire:
Leisure Media Company.
Mace, R. (1985). Universal Design: Barrier free environments for everyone. Los
Angeles: Designers West.
Manstead, A.S.R. and Semin, G.R. (1988). Methodology in Social Psychology:
Turning Ideas into Actions. In Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., Stephenson, G. and
Codol, J.P. (Eds) (1988). Introduction to Social Psychology, 60-85. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd
Edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
McDonnell, A.B. (2005). Top 20 Product Trends from the Past 20 Years. Fitness
Management Magazine, 21(8), 48-55.
McGough, S. (1999). Buying Strength Equipment for Special Populations.
Fitness Management Magazine, 15(8), 30-34.
McGough, S., McDonnell, A.B. and Rhodes, R. (2004). What’s New in the
Equipment World? Fitness Management Magazine, 20(8), 36-39.
McQueen, R. and Knussen, C. (2002). Research Methods for Social Science:
An Introduction. Essex: Pearson Education.
Mencap (2000). Am I making myself clear? Mencap’s guidelines for accessible
writing. London: Mencap.
Mencap (2003). Associated Conditions [online]. Available at:
http://www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=1702 [Accessed 27 September 2007].
225
Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. MIS
Quarterly, June 1997, 21(2), 241-242.
Office for National Statistics (2004). Living in Britain: Results from the 2002
General Household Survey. Newport: Office for National Statistics.
Oliver, P. (2008). Writing Your Thesis. Second Edition. London: Sage.
Peebles, L. and Norris, B. (1998). Adultdata - The Handbook of Adult
Anthropometric and Strength Measurements - Data for Design Safety. London:
Department of Trade & Industry.
Petrick, E. (2002). Opening Doors: Why Fitness Facilities Should Make Room
for People With Disabilities [online]. Chicago: The National Centre on Physical
Activity and Disability. Available at:
http://www.ncpad.org/whtpprs/openingdoors.htm [Accessed 11 July 2003].
Pfeiffer, D. (2002). The Philosophical Foundations of Disability Studies.
Disability Studies Quarterly, 22(2), 3-23.
Pope, A.M. and Tarlov, A.R. (Eds) (1991). Disability in America: Toward a
National Agenda for Prevention. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2005). Improving the life chances of disabled
people. Final Report, January 2005. London: Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.
Rauworth, A. (2008). New ASTM Initiative: “Inclusive Fitness Equipment
Standards” [online]. Available at:
http://www.ncpad.org/fitt/fact_sheet.php?sheet=658&view=all&print=yes&PHPS
ESSION [Accessed 11 November 2008].
Rimmer, J.H. (1994). Fitness and rehabilitation programs for special
populations. Dubuque, IA: WCB McGraw-Hill.
226
Rimmer, J.H., (1999). Health Promotion for People With Disabilities: The
Emerging Paradigm Shift From Disability Prevention to Prevention of Secondary
Conditions [online]. Chicago: The National Centre on Physical Activity and
Disability. Available at: http://www.ncpad.org/whtpprs/healthpropwdshift.htm
[Accessed 11 July 2003].
Rimmer, J.H. (2002). Resistance Training for Persons with Physical Disabilities
[online]. Chicago: The National Centre on Physical Activity and Disability.
Available at: http://www.ncpad.org/whtpprs/resistancetrng.htm [Accessed 11
July 2003].
Rimmer, J.H. (2003). New Study Finds Low Accessibility of Physical Activity
Facilities. NCPAD: Directors Corner, February 2003 [online]. Chicago: The
National Centre on Physical Activity and Disability. Available at:
http://www.ncpad.org/Feature/directors_corner/DC021403.htm [Accessed 12
November 2003].
Rimmer, J.H. (2005a). Gyms Need a Higher Level of Technology To Reach
People with Disabilities. NCPAD: Directors Column, February 2005 [online].
Chicago: The National Centre on Physical Activity and Disability. Available at:
http://www.ncpad.org/director/fact_sheet.php?sheet=294 [Accessed 12 May
2005].
Rimmer, J.H. (2005b). Exercise and physical activity in persons aging with a
physical disability. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North
America, 16(2005), 41-56.
Rimmer, J.H., Riley, B., Wang, E. and Rauworth, A. (2005). Accessibility of
Health Clubs for People with Mobility Disabilities and Visual Impairments.
American Journal of Public Health, 95(11), 2022-2028.
Rimmer, J.H., Riley, B., Wang, E., Rauworth, A. and Jurkowski, J. (2004).
Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities - barriers and
facilitators. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 26(5), 419-425.
227
Rimmer, J.H., Rubin, S.S., Braddock, D. and Hedman, G. (1999). Physical
activity patterns of African-American women with physical disabilities. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 613-618.
Royal National Institute for the Blind (1999). See it Right. London: RNIB
Corporate Information and Publishing.
Schleien, S., Green, F. and Stone, C. (2003). Making friends within inclusive
community recreation programs. American Journal of Recreation Therapy, 2(1),
7-16.
Short, C. (2001). Human factor influences on effective computer aided design
implementation. Ph.D. thesis, Sheffield Hallam University.
Simunds, E. and McGill, S. (2003). Aging With Developmental Disabilities:
Meeting Social and Recreation Needs. In Gaylord, V., Lieberman, L., Abery, B.,
and Lais, G. (Eds) (2003). Feature Issue on Social Inclusion Through
Recreation for Persons with Disabilities, Impact, 16(2). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Spinal Injuries Association (2006). Inclusive Fitness Initiative. Forward, April
2006, 29-30.
Sport England (2002a). Adults with a Disability and Sport National Survey 2000-
2001. Main Report. Ref no 2160. London: Sport England.
Sport England (2002b). Access for Disabled People. London: Sport England.
Strauss, A.C. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sutton, R. (2003). Chapter 4: Case Studies and Personal Perspectives,
‘Inclusive fitness initiative’. DDA Leisure Directory 2004, 94-97. Surrey: Stable
Publishing.
228
Sutton, R. (Ed) (2004). DDA Leisure Directory 2004. Surrey: Stable Publishing.
The Leisure Media Company (2006). Welcome to the health club management
ratecard [online]. Available at:
http://www.leisuremedia.com/ratecard/circulation.cfm?magazine=healthclub
[Accessed 17 June 2007].
The National Centre on Physical Activity and Disability (2006). NCPAD
Newsletter 8th September 2006, 5(9).
The Stationery Office (2005). Disability Discrimination Act 2005 - Elizabeth II,
Chapter 13. London: The Stationery Office.
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead Users: An Important Source of Novel Product
Concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791-805.
Voris, H.C. (2004). Enhancing Product Safety in the Fitness Equipment
Industry. Standardization News, 32(11), 30-31. Pennsylvania: ASTM
International.
Voshol, A., Staal, G. and Faas, D. (Eds) (1997). Old/New: The Elderly as a
Starting Point for Innovative Designs (Oud/Nieuw). Amsterdam: The
Netherlands Design Institute.
Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is Participatory Action Research? Action Research
International, Paper 2 [online]. Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
Available at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html
[Accessed 30 June 2008].
Ward, P., Wicebloom, S., Holmes, S. and Dinan, S. (2001). Teaching Exercise
and Fitness for Disabled People: YMCA Fitness Industry Training Student
Resource 2001/2002. Edition Two. London: YMCAfit.
229
Ward, S. (2005). Industrial Design [online]. Chicago: Life Fitness. Available at:
http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/industrialdesign2 [Accessed 10
October 2005].
Wolcott, H.F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
230
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
: Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI) background information
: List of fitness equipment suppliers providing products for
practical testing
: Invitation to fitness equipment suppliers to participate
: Testers’ questionnaire and scoring criteria including
examples of completed items
: Summary of main equipment accessibility issues identified
by testers
: Example of focus group agenda and minutes
i: Draft for Development (Stage One)
I: Example of supplementary test description and testers’
questionnaire including examples of completed items
Excerpt from inclusive design standard (IFI Equipment
Standard - Stage 2, Part 1 - General Requirements and
Part 2 - Strength Equipment)
: Feedback questionnaire for design teams including
examples of completed items
Appendix A: Inclusive Fitness Initiative
(IFI) background information
Inclusive Illness
The
"Across Europe the re are 50 m illio n disabled people. W hat the IFI has done in B rita in, p rov id ing access, s ta ff tra in in g , m arke ting and specialised fitness equ ipm en t is a showcase and should be used as a model fo r s im ilar program m es across th e co n tin e n t."
R ic h a rd H o w i t t , M E P - P r e s id e n t o f th e E u r o p e a n D is a b i l i ty In te r g r o u p o f M E P 's
^ j j v mAslomnYRMDto foundation
Inclusive Fitness InitiativeGetting People Active
A1
"I would say that the help from the gym staff is better than very good; the receptionists are also very helpful and friendly."
User at IFI Site
The impact of
InclusionSince 2001, the Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI) has been working with the fitness industry, creating opportunities for disabled people to workout in a truly inclusive environment.By the end of 2009, the IFI will have launched 400 accredited facilities across England, meaning that more disabled people than ever before have access to an accredited Inclusive Fitness Facility.
The IFI is not simply about access to buildings, it is about a cultural and attitudinal change, a change in the way a facility operates and in the way it is viewed by the community surrounding it. The IFI's mission is to support the fitness industry to offer truly inclusive physical activity opportunities. With only 8.8% of disabled people being regularly physically active, IFI Sites offer the opportunity to challenge this issue in a truly inclusive environment. (Sport England Active People Survey 2006).
The IFI model addresses inclusion in the w idest sense m aking developm ents in the fo llo w in g areas:
• Creation o f accessible fac ilities to m eet cu rren t best practice and legis lation
• Insta lla tion o f inclusive fitness equipm ent, underp inned by a coord inated program m e o f research and developm ent
• T rain ing o f s ta ff th ro u g h o u t the fa c ility ensuring th a t disabled people receive a safe effective and value fo r m oney experience
• Im p lem en ta tion o f inclusive m arke ting strategies to ensure th a t disabled people are aw are o f the oppo rtun itie s available and th a t the industry prom otes a m ore inclusive and accessible image
What to expect at an IFI SiteAs a disabled person w a n tin g to ge t involved in fitness, w h a t should you expect a t an accredited IFI Site?
A2
"If I came alone without my carer I would still be able to get to the changing room and then into the gym by myself which is fantastic."Disabled user a t an accredited facility
• Accessible facilities, ensuring you can gain access to the fac ility and the services available• 89% o f disabled users a t IFI Sites rated accessibility as very good or good
• A positive s ta ff a ttitu d e• 94% o f disabled users a t IFI Sites fou nd the service and support o ffe red by
sta ff to be very good o r good
• Inclusive fitness equ ipm en t enab ling the vast m a jo rity o f users to get a fu ll body w o rko u t• 80% o f disabled users rated access to fitness equ ipm en t e ither as very good or good
The Benefits of Using an IFI Site• First and forem ost, exercise can be fun !
• Physical activ ity reduces th e risk o f some cancers, cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes and obesity
• Being physically active reduces the risk o f depression and has positive benefits fo r mental health - includ ing reduced anxiety, enhanced m ood and self-esteem
• Physical activ ity reduces th e risk o f fa lls and accidents am ongst o lde r people or people w ith lim ited m o b ility
Getting Active• On average IFI Sites a ttra c t 128 visits by disabled people and provide an induc tion fo r
9 new disabled users per m on th
• Over 50% o f disabled users a ttrac ted to IFI Sites have never used a fitness suite be fore - a com plete ly new m arket
• In 2007 IFI Sites a ttracted around 370,000 visits by disabled people. In 2008 th is f ig u re is pro jected to rise to 571,000
• In 2007 over 28,000 disabled people jo ined an IFI Site. In 2008 th is f ig u re is set to rise to over 40,000
• 96% o f disabled customers w o u ld recom m end the experience o f using th e ir local IFI Site to others
• Nearly 50% o f all disabled users visit the gym tw ice or m ore a week
An Industry Impact• The IFI has now provided advice on access and com m unica tion to over 300 fitness facilities
in England
• Over 5,000 members o f s ta ff a t IFI Sites have received d isab ility awareness tra in in g .A fu rth e r 5000 s ta ff w ill be tra ined by th e end o f 2009
A3
• 1,500 fitness instructors have received specific tra in in g enab ling them to provide inclusive fitness programmes. A fu rth e r 1500 s ta ff w ill be tra ined by the end o f 2009
• Over 90% o f all tenders fo r new fitness equ ipm en t now specify the requ irem en t fo r IFI accredited fitness equ ipm en t
Breaking Down Barriers• The IFI has em ployed a ne tw o rk o f Regional Inclusive Activators w o rk ing w ith fac ilities to
a ttra c t m ore disabled users
• Over 2m illion p rom otiona l leafle ts have been d is tribu ted by IFI Sites
• M edia coverage focusing on th e IFI has a cum ula tive readership in excess o f 5m illion
• The IFI website attracts 100,000 hits per m on th and offers the o p p o rtu n ity fo r disabled people to f in d th e ir nearest accredited fac ility
• The delivery o f the firs t ever na tiona l level conference focusing upon inclusive fitness a ttrac ted over 300 industry professionals (December 2006)
• The IFI was shortlisted in the fin a l th ree Best Health Projects a t the National Lo tte ry Awards 2007.
Fitness Equipment Developments• The IFI has established a partnersh ip betw een equ ipm en t suppliers, Sheffie ld Hallam
University and disabled people, leading to a research g roup and fitness equ ipm en t tes ting system
• The IFI has now published its Equipm ent Standards - Stage Two, against w h ich equ ipm en t is cu rren tly being assessed
• The IFI has accredited fitness equ ipm en t fro m over 20 d iffe re n t fitness equ ipm en t suppliers th a t provides inclusive features
• IFI equ ipm en t developm ents have a g loba l im pact w ith standards being fo rm a lly recognised w ith in the European Standard fo r S tationary Fitness Equipm ent
An Inclusive FutureThe IFI has already achieved a g reat deal, yet the re is s till m ore to be done. W ith a clear asp ira tion to ensure th a t disabled people fro m across th e UK have access to inclusive fitness oppo rtun ities w ith in a reasonable distance from th e ir homes, the fitness industry must rise to the challenge, include all sectors o f the com m unity and then realise the commercial benefits.
This document is available in alternative formats.Please call 0114 2572060
Inclusive Fitness Initiative, do MLS, 4 Park Square, N ew ton Chambers Road,Thorncliffe Park, Chapeltow n, Sheffield, S35 2PH.
Tel: ++44 (0)114 2572060 (Textphone users add prefix 18001) Fax: ++44 (0)114 2570664
Email: [email protected] www.indusivefitness.org
The IFI is run by The English Federation of Disability Sport Operating Company, (Chairman B P Atha CBE, OBE) which is a wholly owned subsidiary company o f the English Federation o f Disability Sport (CEO Colin Chaytors): EFDS, Manchester Metropolitan University,
Alsager Campus, Hasall Road, Alsager, ST7 2HL. www.efds.co.uk.
A4
Appendix B: List of fitness equipment
suppliers providing products for
practical testing
Suppliers Providing Fitness Equipment Products For User Testing Sessions
1. Bodycare Products Limited2. Concept 23. Cybex International4. Escape Fitness5. EXF6. Focus 217. HUR8. Idass Fitness9. Keiser UK10. Leisure Lines11. Life Fitness12. Matrix (Johnson)13. Mobility Aids Centre14. Nautilus15. Physique16. Podiatron Ltd17. Polaris Fitness Limited18. Powerplate UK Ltd19. Powerjog20. PowerS port21. Precept22. Precor23. Pulse Fitness24. Reach Wellness25. Shapemaster Toning Systems26. Sportesse27. Stairm aster28. Star T rac29. Technogym30. Unicam Rehabilitation Systems Ltd31. Versaclimber32. Waterrower33. Whiteley Nominees PTY Ltd
B1
Appendix C: Invitation to fitness
equipment suppliers to participate
English Federation of Disability Sport Inclusive Fitness Initiative
Accreditation of Fitness EquipmentThe English Federation of Disability Sport, through a dedicated Operating Company (EFDS OC), and a Cl million grant from the Sport England Lottery Fund has successfully delivered a two-year pilot phase of the Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI), The IFI has grant aided local authority facilities to provide inclusive fitness equipment, training for fitness facility personnel and the production of marketing and sports development packages to encourage, support and sustain the use of fitness equipment by disabled people
The IFI has now received an in principle commitment from the Sport England Lottery Fund to grant aid a further £5 million to the Initiative to deliver a national programme that will run lor three years in 150 facilities throughout England.
Eighty-nine pieces of fitness equipment have been accredited by the IFI scheme to date, A further opportunity is now available for interested suppliers to submit pieces/models of fitness equipment for IFI accreditation. The nominated equipment should be suitable for effective use by both disabled and non-disabled people. The accreditation assessment will take place on 27th November in Wolverhampton Any items of equipment subsequently approved will be accredited for a period of two years.
An information pack, including relevant application forms, is available from: Inclusive Fitness Initiative, 04 Park Square, Thornclifte Park, Newton Chambers Road, Chapeltown, Sheffield, S35 2PHTel 0114 257 2060, Fax 0114 257 0664, email info©inclusivefitness.org
The closing date for receipt of application forms is 24th October 2003. English Federation
of Disability Sport
S P O R TENGLAND
C1
Appendix D: Testers’ questionnaire and
scoring criteria including examples of
completed items
XJ Inclusive Fitness InitiativeTreadmills
inclusive fitness
Tester Number
Equipment Piece Number 10______________
Please score the following according to the scoring criteria:
CATEGORY SCORE
Ease of access on I off N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5
© © © © © ©
Ease of programming N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. how easy to start exercising, how easy to know how far through the program you are, how easy to change speed, size of writing on console, colours used, tactile information)
Turn over page
Range of speed N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5© © © © © ©
(e.g. minimum / starting speed, increments in speed)
Use of emergency stop N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5© © © © © ©
(e.g. position of emergency stop button, ease of use)
General comfort N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5
© © © © © ©(e.g. position and size of handles, smoothness of machine)
Other comments, problems or suggestions
D2
EFDS INCLUSIVE FITNESS INITIATIVE
I N C L U S I V E F I T N E S S
Point Definition0 Unusable
1 Usable with 100% personal assistance
2Usable with additional equipment /
personal assistance
3 Usable with minimal personal assistance
4Usable with minimal additional / adapted
equipment
5 Usable 100% independently
The main differences to be noted involve:
■ the degree to which you would need further
adapted aids
■ the degree to which you would need assistance
from a fitness instructor to access the
machinery. This does not include lifting and
handling but such things as reaching up for
inaccessible handles, moving seats etc.
> ? , T ,u 1 A r
r Fe ii^ *5?" D3 _ SportsEnglish Federation ENGLAND03 Fof Disability Sport lottery fund * o i i jV C ic iv io i t Montgomery LeisureService!
V EFDS INCLUSIVE FITNESS INITIATIVE
I N C L U S I V E F I T N E S S
EXPLANATION OF TERMS
Ease of access into / onto
The degree to which you could get onto the equipment. Could it be accessible from either side? Did you require assistance getting onto the equipment?
Ease of access off from
Once on the equipment, did you need assistance to get off?
Range of movement Did the way the equipment works suit your body shape? Did the exercise feel safe?
Range of resistance Was there enough different weights / speeds for you to exercise at your desired level?
Adjustability How easy was it to change the weights / speeds?
Comfort Was seating comfortable? How did the padding feel?
Ease of use / programming
Was it technically complicated to use the equipment? Was there enough information provided?For cardio-vascular equipment, how easy was it to set up an exercise programme?
•C/i (?) T"‘$%7nEnglish Federation e D4 — SpOJ'tSt i iy n s i i r c u c id i iu n ENGLAND r Jof Disability Sport LO T T E R Y FU N D roiinaation MontgomeryLeisureService:
VJ Inclusive Fitness Initiativef Treadmills
Inclusive fitness
Tester Number ________
Equipment Piece Number ] 15
Please score the following according to the scoring criteria:
CATEGORY SCORE
Ease of access on I off N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5
© © © © ©
Ease of programming N/A 0 1 2 3 4 / 5© © © © © ©
(eg. how easy to start exercising, how easy to know how far through the program you are, how easy to change speed, size of writing on console, colours used, tactile information)
s jU ^ J r t fy k L xn fc /J ^ io
j i <1 «■> <rj v A lA /x ■«— - J U ^
Turn over page
D5
Range of speed N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5____________________________________________© © © © © d(e.g. minimum / starting speed, increments in speed)
A
<pTAl SV"t\ > J T
Use of emergency stop N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5© © © © ©
(eg. position of emergency stop button, ease of use)
General comfort N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 /© © © © © ©
(e.g. position and size of handles, smoothness of machine)
Other comments, problems or suggestions
/vi 0) t ^ \f C?> ^ crv- S
•"—t lv Inclusive Fitness Initiativef Treadmills
Inclusive fltne
Tester Number ______
Equipment Piece Number | 15
Please score the following according to the scoring criteria:
CATEGORY SCORE
Ease of access on I off N/A 0 1 2 3 4
© © © © ©l la c jh t uuas o k a c j .
I Li lu t n i inckeaboiq of Coleus of Vlnj_ bcnrclnr arounc!t h e e c l o e s a n d the f / Y m n e s s .
h i l c r w o f w h i l e h an c jle s p f t f t f f e d .
Ease of programming N/A 0 ( l ) 2 3 4 5
(eg. how easy to start exercising, how easy to know how far through the program you are, how easy to change speed, size of writing on console, colours used, tactile information)
F v l r t ^ O , c b p P u n l l , h e e cU b be m e te z c t c h l t
Q uTk k J e o n J S h r w e d to be niarr famcuncai The p lu s a n d Mi nus , n e e d b> be m arked^ c b f f - e r r n r y
- \ f one m s r a i s e d o w r . Couldn't read V isua l f l u m k n n a
fh e d A u d io . » old-eg ^ P s r rn c l h be u u c h lo u e te t b>
-fa L i lu that H u tf are mza.j fdinon patch oHl-ver. Turn over page
D7
Range of speed N/A 0 1 2 3 4 (s )\r>j ( - ) ( - ) CC)
(e.g. minimum / starting speed, increments in speed)
id e a l and inchm icLeal
Use of emergency stop N/A 0 1 2 3 4iX ) ( - ) (w) to
(eg. position of emergency stop button, ease of use)duel Cord It he l\ i i louJand
3n Kj an I i ^ 6 fer Mciqnehc lock ■ % i ^u hi fc.
General comfort N/A 0 1 2 3 4 (5 © © © © © ©(e.g. position and size of handles, smoothness of machine)Stlnrr ^rmof handles q!'t (d s ^ -u n u5 > ic (j? hcuxliet k he ejellffvv. d
"M ayd (sruooUtness °f ''/
Other comments, problems or suggestions___________
L c j k k / Co l o w b \ a c U <$> p r o b Uwfa s L e r a c c e s r ( j b,lc / co le ru .r.
^ ( v t / (fram e r - /ox
D8
Inclusive Fitness InitiativeV Treadmillsinclusive fitness
Tester Number / © ) /©
Equipment Piece Number | 15
Please score the following according to the scoring criteria:
CATEGORY SCORE
Ease of access on I off N/A 0 1 2 3 4
© © © © © ©
Ease of programming N/A 0 1 2 3 4 © © © © © ©(eg. how easy to start exercising, how easy to know how far through the program you are, how easy to change speed, size of writing on console, colours used, tactile information)
s ecVKA , '“ ' ‘A t ’tV C . W C ty b v ^ ! ;4s i l o f j n j ^ r s
O^jl\$am ^ 1 0jv\c^ s c
(J u W i CXA
Turn over page
D9
Range of speed N/A 0 1 2 3 (4 5 © © © © © ©(e.g. minimum / starting speed, increments in speed)
t-jhc-Jr is-VW I W \ is \\Uhaovv»mW=> /pH (4 W me/{£ « . °| o v d .
Use of emergency stop N/A 0 1 2 3 4 (5
(eg. position of emergency stop button, ease of use)^ ^ ■'+ •'» +U ^ ^ bkrt, 9-0 &X-e~ M '
General comfort N/A 0 1 2 3 © © © © © ©(e.g. position and size of handles, smoothness of machine)p \ U « A t>f U * I < m > * i /
l o iO p y e s A j ^ i T '
Other comments, problems or suggestions_________. l( of tfU Ua>4 MKScU T v© ^ cclc<'-,,0‘-
I ' AAaC s \CA£^> i t tvC-q © u t i x tA/£-CX/^ t , A -l
( i i c.fc ^ U f 1 ‘" 3
W tc W
D10
Appendix E: Summary of main
equipment accessibility issues identified
by testers
Summary of Main Equipment Accessibility Issues Identified by Testers
(Presented by Generic Product Type):
Lower Body Resistance:
• Access issues with position of padding and range of movement required to get over padding, also difficulty of transfer from wheelchair (8 users)
• Weights too heavy and increments too large (10 users)• Problems with seat height and/or difficulty using seat height adjustment
(19 users)• Unilateral use of equipment difficult (4 users)• Stability issue - lack of trunk support/seat belt required especially at
higher weights (open sided machines) (9 users)• Seat uncomfortable (11 users)• Need for tactile information (6 users)• Use of colour contrast and colour coding (seat, upholstery, frame,
adjustments, handles) (14 users)• Adjustments heavy, stiff, poorly positioned, fiddly, hard to grip or
awkward (25 users)• Poor instructions for use - absent, poor position, incomplete, use of
diagrams required, appropriate vocabulary (26 users)
Upper Body Resistance:
• Transfer issues - equipment unusable if unable to transfer/remove seat, lack of handles to assist transfer, difficulty removing seat (25 users)
• Difficult to achieve correct exercising position with wheelchair access (arms too far back) (10 users)
• Weights too heavy and increments too large, use of half weights desirable (15 users)
• Difficult to use unilaterally - grip difficult, unequal strength (12 users)• Handgrips need redesigning and to be more adjustable (16 users, plus
some from the unilateral use category)• Stability issues - feel unstable/unsafe when exercising, lack of trunk
support (open sided machines), need for seatbelt and/or back support (15 users)
• Seating issues - sliding off seat when pushing, seat too small, seat too hard/uncomfortable (22 users)
• Need for tactile information - especially on weight stack (11 users)• Use of colour contrast and colour coding (pads, handles, seat,
adjustments, weight pin, frame, upholstery) (29 users)• Difficulty reaching high handles - can't use grab handle at higher weights,
assistance required (especially lat pulldown) (18 users)
• Poor instructions - absent, poorly positioned, incomplete, use of diagrams required, appropriate vocabulary (33 users)
• Adjustments - heavy, stiff, poorly positioned, fiddly, hard to grip, awkward or difficult to reach (26 users)
Multistations:
• Access mostly restricted by seats being difficult to remove (10 users)• Weights too heavy and increments too large (8 users)• Adjustments heavy, stiff, poorly positioned, fiddly or hard to grip (7 users)• Balance issues/concerns - need for stability points, support bars and
handles (7 users, of which 3 users complained of their wheelchair tipping during exercise)
• Equipment thought to be too complex/complicated (8 users) and expressed need for assistance, tuition or support (20 users)
• Poor instructions - absent, small size, poorly positioned (12 users)• High handles not reachable (8 users) plus requests for grab handles (4
users)• Pulley unit difficult to move - hard, awkward, stiff or heavy (10 users)• Difficult to identify weight selection and hole (8 users)
Treadmills:
• High step on height (3 users)• Lowest starting speed too fast (3 users)• Right-hand bias of controls (2 users)• Handrails (position) good for confidence (9 users) - need sufficient length
as well• Preference for clip-on style emergency stop (6 users)• Supervision/assistance required with programming (5 users)• Console - tactile information (12 users), complex/too much information
(13 users), audio feedback (8 users), more colour contrast (3 users)• Controls on handrails or 'pod' simplifies use/more user-friendly (7 users)
Recumbent Cycles:
• Step over too high, good range of movement needed (8 users)• Complicated equipment - instruction or assistance required (12 users)• Console - complex/too much information (8 users), text too small (2
users), no audio feedback (5 users), better colour contrast (2 users), tactile information required (7 users)
• Problems with seat adjustment - hidden/difficult to find, hard to use/difficult to use or fiddly (13 users)
• Pedals and straps - getting feet into and fastening/adjusting (8 users), foot knocking central section of frame or falling out of pedals (heel strap required) (7 users), better colour contrast (4 users)
Upright Cycles:
• Seat too high even at lowest setting (11 users)• Low step over height/no central section to step over (3 users)• Seat adjustment difficult/stiff (5 users)• Pedals and straps - poor ease of use (16 users), difficult to put feet in
initially (5 users), feet falling out of pedals once exercising (heel straps required) (3 users)
• Console - complex programming (10 users), tactile information (4 users), audio feedback (2 users)
Upper Body Ergometer:
• Problems with wheelchair access - needs removable seat, seat difficult/heavy to remove, not clear floor access (8 users)
• Different shaped handgrips required (3 users)• Seat belt required to aid balance (2 users)• Poor instructions (2 users)• Console - complex/hard/fiddly (3 users), tactile information required (1
user)
Elliptical Trainers:
• Difficulty getting on and off - stability and confidence issues, requests for support for balance (7 users)
• Console - no tactile information (4 users), audio feedback (2 users), complex programming (5 users)
Steppers:
• High step on height (5 users)• Poor instructions (2 users)
Rowing Machines:
• Seat uncomfortable (2 users)
Appendix F: Example of focus group
agenda and minutes
TIN C L U S IV E F IT N E S S
EFDS INCLUSIVE FITNESS INITIATIVE
Research Associates R&D ForumMonday 24th March 2003
Wentworth 3 (Room 5511), 5th Floor, Surrey Building, City Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
A g e n d a10.30am
11.00am
11.15am
11.30am
Coffee
W elcome & Introductions
Introduction to the Inclusive Fitness Initiative
• Overview of the I FI• IFI aims and successes• Need/market for inclusive design (DDA etc)
Introduction to IFI Research Project
Funding and management arrangements Aims and objectives Approach to work programme Expected outcomes
11.45am Introduction to Sheffield Hallam University, School of Engineering
• Sports Engineering Lab and other testing/design facilities
12.00noon Introduction to R&D Forum
• Ground rules (confidentiality, informal, etc)• Input required from R&D representatives• Expected outcomes
1 2 .30 - 1.30pm Lunch
1.30pm Open Forum
To discuss topics including:
Suppliers approach to design, current knowledge of disability issues, barriers to inclusive design, R&D requirements from IFI Project, information required (format, quantity, timescales), accreditation/self-certification process
3.30pm Q&A Session followed by tour of School of Engineering facilities
4pm Close
&English Federation of Disability Sport
SPORTENGLAND F1
L O T T E R Y FU N D
The G ary Jeleti
Sports Foundation MontgomeryLeisureServices
Minutes of IFI Research Associates R&D ForumMonday 24th March 2003
Wentworth 3 (Room 5511), 5th Floor, Surrey Building, City Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
In Attendance:
CybexEscape Fitness Leisure Lines MatrixNautilus Group Precor Pulse Pulse Sportesse Technogym IFI/MLSSupplier Representative Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield Hallam University
Apologies:
Life Fitness Versaclimber
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Introduction to the Inclusive Fitness Initiative
Will Behenna gave a presentation and discussed the following issues with suppliers:
2.1. Overview of IFIExplanation of the main areas covered by the IFI (Equipment, Training, Marketing, Sports Development)
2.2. Experiences of disabilityAlthough some suppliers had personal experience of working with disabled people most suppliers reported that their main experiences of disability were those coming from the IFI accreditation sessions. A brief version of the YMCA Level One Disability Equality Training was presented which concern conditioning and the perception of disability.
2.3. Disability MarketPresentation of statistics concerning the number of disabled people in the UK and the £40 billion annual spending power of disabled people. Suppliers requested that this information be emailed to them. Discussion of an aging population increasing the incidence of disability and so the already large disability market (approximately 8
F2
million people) is likely to increase in size over the next few years. The point was raised that many of the equipment changes for disabled people would also benefit nondisabled people.
3. Introduction to IFI Research Project
Dawn Hughes gave presentation on the research project covering the following points:
3.1. Research ProjectThe research is a 3 year PhD project funded by multiple partners including equipment manufacturers and suppliers and based at Sheffield Hallam University.
3.2. Aims(i) Comprehensive guidelines on design(ii) Self-certification process for implementation(iii) BS EN 957 incorporation
3.3. Process(i) Barriers to inclusive design - identification(ii) Information gathering via forums (User, Facilitator, Supplier)
3.4. Supplier Forum(a) Barriers to design
(i) Knowledge of disability issues(ii) Other barriers - cost, resources, time, etc(iii) Information and assistance
(b) IFI Accreditation(i) New accreditation - format (self-certification), timescale, standard(ii) Accreditation by impairment groups and/or star rating?
3.5. Issues- Project to help not hinder suppliers- University is impartial
4. Introduction to Sheffield Hallam University, School of Engineering
Nick Pickett gave a presentation covering the following topics:
4.1. Sports Equipment Development CourseNick Pickett gave an overview of the course and highlighted the benefits for both students and suppliers of student placements and/or projects within the fitness industry.
4.2. Testing FacilitiesAn offer was made to all suppliers involved in the IFI Research project to use Sheffield Hallam University's testing facilities. It was stressed that the work could be performed to BS EN standards (possibly to check and confirm companies self-certification work) and all work would remain confidential between the University and the supplier involved. The School of Engineering works in association with the Centre for Sport and Exercise Science and these test facilities could also be made available to suppliers (including the biomechanics and motion analysis laboratories).
F3
5. Tour of School of Engineering facilities
Suppliers were given the opportunity to view the dedicated Sports Engineering Laboratory and other testing facilities within the School of Engineering at Sheffield Hallam University.
6. Open Discussion Forum
6.1. Topic One: Barriers to Design
Exercise:The group split into smaller groups for a brain-storming session. Each group was given an impairment group and was asked to consider the use of CV, resistance and free weight equipment in relation to
- Access- Communication- Environment- Attitude
Findings:The following summarises the main points identified during the brain-storming session:
Physical Disability
• Most CV equipment focuses on the lower body• Low starting speed• Low step-up or step-over height• Need to press buttons including the emergency stop• Seats• Grips• Stability straps• Unilateral movement• Instructions - aimed towards disabled? Pictorial• Handles• Adjustments• Low start weights• Pre-stretch mechanisms• Space between equipment (turning circles, space for helpers)• Assumption made by instructors about peoples abilities• Disability training required - suppliers provide a training package/induction but
generally do not include disability issues
Hearing Impairment
• Balanced affected therefore additional handrails• Clear visuals needed to compensate for audio feedback• Auto shutdown for treadmill as can't hear if moving• Clear written instructions. Video? Sign language?• Written induction material so can take away from session. Jargon?• Demonstration important
F4
Visual Impairment
• Product orientation and recognition• Colour contrast - adjustments, flooring, walls• Tactile• No sharp edges, protruding pieces• Ramps not steps• Consoles - pattern to buttons, colour contrast, tactile• Standardisation across range e.g. seat adjustment• Panic button• Clear space around equipment• Training and induction• Lighting• Identification of weight selected• Confusion with mixed weights e.g. lbs, kgs etc
Learning Difficulty
• Obvious entry point to the machine• Instructions and charts - pictures• kgs, lbs etc - what do they mean?• Easy set-up• Distractions - noise, layout too busy, loud music• Guided learning• No of commands before machine starts• Reading and writing - console?• Daunting environment
General observations
Suppliers commented that a number of issues they identified during the session were common both across disability groups and across equipment types. Solving these issues could help a large number of disabled people and may not be particularly expensive or complicated to implement.
Compromises would have to be made between the needs of certain disability groups who require opposing features on equipment.
6.2. Discussion:
Dawn Hughes asked suppliers for feedback on other issues which were currently barriers to inclusive design. The following barriers and other concerns were raised and discussed:
• Cost (passed on to all users including disabled and non-disabled) - need simple, low cost changes.
• R&D departments not in UK make responding to change difficult. Suppliers requested research should produce information in a written format which can easily be sent to other departments in company.
F5
• Disability needs to be considered at an early stage in the design process - often too late for changes to be implemented after initial designs are finalised. Market lead times likely to be 12-18 months.
• Attitude of the company the design works for - need to justify resources and compare sales with equipment changes to sales without equipment changes.
• UK is not the only market suppliers are involved in, other countries are not considering disability issues.
• Limited knowledge of how to produce good inclusive instructions for equipment (Dawn Hughes to investigate and feedback to suppliers).
• Limited feedback in the fitness industry from disabled users.• Need for numeric design data on sizes, forces etc for wheelchairs.• Need for list of 'considerations' when designing for each disability group (e.g.
position of adjustments, colour contrasting etc).• Changes made for IFI accreditation must also comply with BS EN 957
requirements.• Access aids - suppliers have no information about current access aids (e.g.
radius of grip).• Differences in national standards for sizes of bars, labelling of weights etc.• Design changes must not compromise use by non-disabled customers.• Limited availability of equipment for designers to use e.g. range of wheelchair
types and sizes. IFI to possibly arrange a visit for the suppliers to try some different wheelchairs in a gym environment?
6.3. Topic Two: IFI Guidance & Accreditation
Suppliers requested that information should be disseminated from the IFI research project by impairment group. The alternative of giving guidance by equipment type (e.g. treadmills, cycles) or equipment features (e.g. console, pedals) was thought to be unfair as some suppliers only produce one type of equipment and may have to wait for a significant period of time until guidance appropriate to their equipment becomes available.
Suppliers requested that the guidance should list features which should be considered, accompanied by a number of possible solutions to achieve inclusive design of these features. Suppliers requested a number of solutions to be presented to allow increased scope for product differentiation between companies.
Suppliers discussed the format the IFI accreditation should take and initially stated a preference for classification by impairment group and then a star rating applied within each impairment group. Concerns were raised that this may lead to local authorities choosing the equipment with the highest star rating in each category, which may lead to equipment from a mix of suppliers. This would limit the consistency of design features (e.g. the console) across equipment which is important for a number of impairment groups (notably visually impaired and learning difficulties).
7. Any Other Business
Dawn Hughes raised the issue that she was having difficulty in finding numeric data on features such as step-up height, size of starting weight etc from supplier sales literature alone. She asked if suppliers would be happy for her to email the R&D representatives to request this information. The suppliers agreed that this would be acceptable.
Suppliers felt that a session on 'marketing to disabled people' at the next R&D forum would be beneficial for them.
8. Close
F6
Appendix G: Draft for Development
(Stage One)
X 1-* V)P s t 5 .S * | 'S
r2t OK £
0>CO
0 )■auCOT3C
J = CO
COooCM
a<COCO0 )c
0>CO3
oc
£ LUCO CO 0 c
0C ^
o §0 o0 > + 5
? < S * □ s oO ’ W o
c0Ea
CM
L .a<
-4-»CO
> tCCOa
a> o 502 *u .-SI -MCO CO
■g ©-a a- c O0 t
l ageo-m •c ^ Q) -QC CO£ w CL •—5 °
? ! I t .2“ 4-1
1 2
5 ■§5 ©
w•m m
D>C
UJ
ooCMl .0)
JQEQ)O0)
Q
&COL.0>c
3
E-SToz20
§CO> *CD"O0
-C0
33
Q .
COoCMT -1 ^00CO
00
03CO
<£QK 2 |
fie <* J o -j « 0 . 0 1 </>*2 iu
C -H
(0 (A
G)>■53CO‘■53C
COCOQ )c
0)c
OCDo><oS §CO s
CO " O
CO" OcaCO
a<5OCO
1 5 5 s
0>CO3
C0E
ooCM
i *o - <
U J “
w r 0 0 c
0-Q
E3z0O0
CL
CO ^ lO N O ) O )O N M C O N C O O r f MT - T - T - T — T— T -C N JC N |C N i
COCM
C
CO*->e0£o
o
73£3oh_G )
a0 0
10>30
0>c o
_3Oc0
JCI -
c^*0>(75
_3O
_c
*->c0EQ .
*3C7
LUCO00£
0£
§
CM
0£o0U)0
S ^.0 I O 0
x : oL -0 0c o
w 00 0 1_a
073£0
oo<
£0Ea
i 3
£ » Q. Q. W .= ■ •= ■ 0 3 3 £ CT D - . t i
LU LU LL
£0E
£0EQ .
*3CT
LU■D0+■»~ 0 73 s_ 0 3i- 4-1O 35 LL< o
Li- £
-r - CM CO T f lO CM CM CM CM CM
(/)+-ȣ0E0
'5u-0
a : (A — 02 o 0 0 £ £ 0 O
o o
£0
= I0 .9-D . U-
1 »LU .Eo> .E c 0= h0 ^
• -
f . 6 E
0 "o 2 0* -> 0 L_CO D_ I—
0 h .0 4-f 0
i •s>SHi IE > g
73 ^O SE00 Q )»- £ 0 ■ -
a £ a o z> a:
CO1—0£-0
S2 o0 ‘<3a c l a =3 LU CO -Q73 = £ 0 0 0) W S
0 .E-Q 0 | ho CO
.± co 0 o4-> * -
CO o
CO■Dk_0
73£04-1
CO
£0EQ .'5CJ
LU
CM £ r|
JO
'04->0
Q
o04-4£o
o
Q)COCDo > < o
CD 2 o> CO C>J
CO b T 3 3 "
in <
f ®I ”CO
o oCM
(0
C L.COCOCDcC «M o
co -S
Q)>CO3
oc
c0 )
Ef rc r <u OCO x -CO0
c
(0</)<DC
0>
_□oc
0£I -
TO - t73CD
CD
■uc3O1.O)
0 0
DO10>
0j z0
X!do
CO
00o£0
CO01—1300
0CD
730
Od
0 ;g00 G3 CD
CD
1 sco .5?
0JO
0
i t ro
0EoCDco
>JD730O13
73Coo
jzo1_00w0
q:
0
c1300 -Sr
073C0co0Q.'gr0Q.
CDC
0 73 d
oLL0 -e oQ.
COC 00 0
^ ■£ 0 'o
O 0
73C0E0
7373d0>Q.Q.130
730
CDCo
000c00«;0
JD00
0
73 ~
O_00
_0Q.O0Q.
0X0
4—O0
4—0d0
JD0
JZ
o0CL
73_0J300
734-40CDCo
000
730Q.O0>0
73d00
X!00
LL
0 i t ll
73C0
52 - t O
07300C0
000i_
73730
>C0Q.Eoo
0'~o0
JD130
730C
— o 0 >> a i1 f £
73C=3
LL
£0
0 t JZI -
73 d 0 CD dLU
■ -e
S 8. e wC 00 -C
1 £ 0 2
^ CO
s «JZ 00
0Q.O0Q_
O
0do
*4—»0i_0CLO00CD0d0
730"cOCLCL0
CO
LL
0
>>CD00
•*—>0
73d0>goCL0
CD =
0
d0
00CDd0
000
JZ
00coCL00i—0>
4—>o0o
. t 0
73O■4—>
COQLLlu
■£OQ.
CO
JD00
co0i_0
730
LL
0”5 )£Z
LU0
> ,JDCL
*4—» 0 0
0E0
JZo00
ob0>
"073
O000-I—'0>CL
0
0OC0>
_00i_0>0
JZ0 ■4—<d0doCLEoo
0
04—>Z3
JD
0 '>0
_go
_c0Eoo0
JD
t loCLCLO0
00 730 _g
i t o o ■—
* 5 ^CL
0JD00>00
■g 0
4—>c0
(5
073
000i—0
0E
oM—0
JZh-
0JZ
4—o
0
4-> O )■4—' c c0 0 "c>» E 00 C l 1—
<; O 1 -0E
0>0
_ 0
00
7 3 CLO
0 00 JZ C lJZ4—' 7 3d C 0o JD•4—'Z3 c 0O o 0
7 3i—o 0E
<4—o>
>_
£0
7 37 3 d 0O 0
JD 0 d
3>4—0
7 30
JZ
0 >o4-41—
0 L_ o0 CL <4—
0 i . 03O d dO 00 E 0d 13 00 O Oo o d0 7 3 0Q. 0 J ZO JZ0CL 1- 4-4
d7 3 04-40 4—' 0
JD0
d0E
CL
E0 o
7 3 Q . o1
c ’ Z3 0 7 3Od
cr0
■Q
0
d0
7 3 0 7 3 4-4f -
C E C04-4
00 0 7 3
7 3 0 0 4—0 d
0 d oJD JZ 0 o00
4-4 E 003 Q_3 d “7 0JZ 0
—1 O " fc
o Z3 0 0JD 7 3 0 to4_> c 0 4—10 0 0 0JZ £Z JZ4—< 0 »4—■» 4-4
0 E 00 0 0S— > i_O0 0 0 0
d F o dLUi 00
od
LU■
dQ)EQ.
‘5O"
LU000C
0>0
73d0CDd’c0
3cr0
JD0073
0■*->000Z3O
00-coCLCL
00Co0>0
0730!—0>0
73
03C"Ero
0-4-4CO
00
0>0
o>
730-4—*
730s_OO0
0g
o0CL0
— 0
0 £ 0 C3> 2 0 4=
0o .g
0 0 0 C
00CD1—CO
Inclu
sive
Mar
ketin
g St
rate
gies
- E
nsur
es
that
not
only
do fa
cilitie
s ca
ter
for t
he ne
eds
of dis
abled
pe
ople
but
also
that
the
y co
mm
unica
te
the
bene
fits
and
oppo
rtuni
ties
of gym
ba
sed
phys
ical
activ
ity
effe
ctive
ly wit
h dis
abled
an
d no
n-di
sabl
ed
peop
le.
0)c
Oa >U )< £
a> -S §> C O N
+ * I —
•2 « =
* ■ § S -
■£ m <CO r
8 = 1
S a o±i coIL 4 ->0) c o> 2 o
• I -3 .9 - co 2 . a c
— LUto r* (0 0
C
0.0’-I—'’c_DS1—o00O> *
oCD
"too‘000CD>4-4CDCL.Q)
760OCD>CD0
ECD 0 -4—»
j d
0CDc0o
■co00OCO0>'0o0i_00
X 0 c o o0 > '0 _g o
_c
c^ ro
c
o0
JD0O0CL0JDX !0CO0
C0Eao0>0
Q0>CO
Oc
000oo0
76O'03X
co0 3c
4-401_4-4c0ocoo>co
oc
co000>4—g
4—> 0
o0>D1—
0c
co0
_go_c00000l—000
0
Co0Q_'gt0CL>1
o0
76g0>
00
0 c 0 c o
0 g
‘c dE E o o
0"4-" 1—- 3 I 3o0 00d5 ^ 0 c 00 —4—'c 0 E
jd
00 0 0
00*0OO0000i_0
' l .0
JD0
Co
’-4—'0 C JDE oo _
“ 1 I— .0
oJO0
DJD00
0000
000000>4—00000c
004-4000000>
*4—'C000COO
0
0
"o.0O0
C0E0
'D300
000CD4—>i+—
4—>0
04—10
D30C
c ^ - 00 ) O> 4-4
00
_ 3 >O 4—>
c0
0+-» 0c 0
0 4-4O0E c
a 0 o''5 3
CO0
cr *-» 0L U 0 -4—»
(0 Q) -COa>c
-H
L .OO
<
U_
0 0 -4—»
L I +■»c O
(0 0 O )0_x E _C
a c_CD
'5 0 3cr 0
CO L UA J
£ 0
§ E 0
00
T— ccsi csi C/)
0
c0E0
'd3c r0
764—>C0E0■0c0<4—0
c0ECLO0>00-4—1O0O1—CL
0
O -s00CD0 4—10
JD0O0CL00
JD000
0 > 4—‘O0
jcTo
[04—>‘c
0
c0EQ_'=3c r0000c
oc:g'0>oCL0
13o
.X
> ,0o
JD"0 -4—»O
0000>oCL
0
c0EQ .
'oc r0
<4—o0CDc0i_00
C00
c00
-Xo0
JD0004—
0>
0
c0Dcr0c00>
00
cr0i_04-4c0ECLO0>0
T30
0 Q_ CL 3 0o
0 0 o c 0
■g > 0o
O- £ CD
013cr
oJD0
-g>o
3JD
C0
■gM—coo
T3C0
O00
(/)i_000 4—>
T30OC0
‘s_0CLX0
OCDv_0>o00
0
0
0 >
O 2
f &L t 0
0
=3OJD0
0J=
Eo
JXo0
JDT30
30>
'0O01—c0
0 T3 0 0 C
T3 C 0
_0 "c 0 E0CL w
■i i4 -4 OC JZ2 0
<d'-o >j z 0.-t: >5 'CD
O
J D
CLO0CL
T 3_0JD00
T 3
0 ■— ^ SO >
o
0 .E
0
01—0
"Q .CLD
■Q 0Eo>4—cc 0
_c0 0 03c
_0"0
H -50 Cx= g )
w a)♦= "o
0JC -♦—*0
_> o 0
T3 C 0
T3 1— 0
■0 C 0 0
0 0 i—
’=3 cr 0i— 0
0
E0sz-4—»CDC
'000L_0
00003C
J D
"0JDO0
• 5 s.9- §■
CL .5=
CD0EQ -
‘ocr00
0o
00I—
-D3cr£000 3C0szo0
0
©c
O0
o > < 0
0 5 ©> » N
n '2 - S o .
5 fc <CO r
“ a ?±i co -SLL 4J ^ 0) C O > J o
« I -3 . S - C o 3 a c
— LU J *-CO r co 0 )
c
o0I—a)0=3Eoi_
4—x:oCD000a
0c00i—0c030000c0
0£0c000i_0 0 C 0 •4—> 00
0 .EQ-Q.=30
Eoi—
4—_xo0000£0"co'0000c0
0 -*—»00oo00
000>0o0
000
00
0
00ooCM
ooCM
0E0
0o0
.2 = 0 Cl0 r r
COOE0
003D00
O)C
0 0 -♦—*03Co 0 4—>c0EQ_'oO’00000l_oo0
0Q.oos_03C0EL_0Q_E~g'0
_E0
0
0000c0
00
Eo -#—»
00g
4—00c0000>0000I—00c0co0cO0030
CD000
E0
004-»00i_Oo0
00
O’0
000003C'c!_00
0 0 4-40 0 -—1— jQ
'0 '0 0O- Q. 0E E 00 "0c Oi__ 0 00 0 >0 0 SZsz > Cl
• • •
Oa>
'o0 .
(0CDCOCD
Q£
cCDEa
'5crLU
CMCM
oi_0000DCQ0Q_0
4—7c0EQ _
O00000c-4—*
M—
0>'0_go_c000'500
0
>oI—0o
0 cr 0 0
03 _C0 0‘g 0 0 0
o4—>0
0
E ro 0 -g- Io 04-4_ 0Ll c— 0
o0
"oo000S—oE
0
0
00H—» _0 OE4-40
0"i_0
001304-4C0EQ .
'l300
001300i_0
0Oc00'=30i_0_0O00>OL_0O00
4 -40
£Occ00000
o0o1—0
000
X00
0i _0o
E00i _0JXooOE0
006o0004—oQ-
0g
jx
0v _0>
'cXE_0"0X00
oCO
0000D
X
0Q0“0s _D3OO
0 c0 co
0
0000
0JXo
:g c l
0 0 0CO
00g's_00g’0cLU
OO0oCO0
0oCC 4—LO CO
o0 o. 0 3 CM"4-4 _0 0 > c
0_00
4 —>00
0 0013
00000C=3
4-4C0EQ__o0>0D4 —>c0EQ-'o0
LU•coQ.
0C0>i0_goc:0o0I -0c0c0 300Q0c
0>0o
CMOOCMi _00E0o0Q
004-4g'oQ.Q_000
0Ci _00g'0cLU"0g•0
E00
0cLU
0g000g'0cLU
oo
0E0szo0
0SZ
Eo
0_0>100000Co00_00
co0g0'5JO
0 "i _00>00
0>oc0 3'0004 —>c0
0 0
"m w.E 0 C Coo30g
"0
0000
CD
00g'0cLU
0g00
0>' 0JDOg4—o0"o0Q-00
lO g
0)
0o><o
q) - 2 o> CO CM■M I ____0 ■ - r
5OCOO
s - g Q
g i SS i CO IL ^0) C o > ® o
• I -3 . 9 - c o 3 a c
— HI J 4*COCO r 0 0£
c
CDEoCD4—4co
(OI—0>'c3
Ejo"roXX0t0Xif)x~c
J OCDcLUroCLif)
0
0-Q
0i_0c■CTOCL0CDO
■00
XC04—
CDC0X
C0i—0oco
-4—'o0sCL0SZ\-
o (0 0 0 tr o a
CO COo
E>%O)oc£o0
01—0"xCL00Xc001—00a04—0c0E
4-4c0Eg.’0cr0000c
-Oc000O£0if)
a3oo000c+4iZofix:*400x0
X J
0
0JO30.
X0 ry,X 9;> 15 O I
0g 0.= 0_l 00 B
LL0
0>"0x0
0XIo001—0>
000C
■4 -1
E »-
CDC'c00ECDCJ*;000c0
cl jy0 0 0 c
0i_003X0-D00
X
0CLO0CLX0JD00X>»XX0O04—0
" 0 D) _Q.E o4—4 1_CL30Coo
JD0co
o0Xc00I—0I—0JDCDgXo0000
O0Oi—CLCL0O
"4—40
000Z*.0
0EE0CDO
0JZ
0
>sc0E0
JZ
0
0>X300
00cD)00X
xc.0J Zo1—00001—“00i—3
4—4o04—3C0E■acz0XC0
0 0 0~o X 00
4—4 X
~oc
c >0
0 4—>■00
l_X
CO > 4—4
0 0 00
<: >c 'o '
1— I—
0CD
___ X7 d 0
0 > * X«+—' i f ) X 1 -4—4 Xc 00 c c3c r0 0
0E
0 XJD X 030
c0 0
>T 3 X 0C 0 X0 04—4 X00
01_0
£Z0
"D X c£0
c3 CD
00d T d X
0 0SZ 4—4
0 C«4—* 0
SZ0i_CL
0EX
0«+—' 0
0XO
’3X0
CD JZ 0>_0
>' 0
0 3X CD O
1 - ' 00
X
C
c0
04—4
■X 0
X0 0c3O
L—X0
0_0
Q . XL_I— X 1—3 0 00c: 0
CD 0X4—4
4—>0
0c 0 0
00i_0i_4—
0 1X•+—> 0 0c . X0 L— 00s_
CL X X0'3 0 " 4—4
c r0
>' 0
00
0 3 £0 O O0 C Cc4—> L_ 04— O
4—O
0
4—z*.l_0
b4—40
O 30 E X‘CL X
0_c
0 c0 c 0
0O4—4 X ' 0X
0c0 X 0 4—4
0 0 4—0 0O 0L_
XO X 30
0 30 0
C0
"Oc
0X>
Xc0
X
0CL0
"O
OL_X
cO)
"00
"0X0
c 1 X 0
0 -f—'0 'o o 0 0 < JZoI— 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 E o o 0 JDO-O 0> g0 1—00 1—0X CL 3 0x0 4—> 0 0 l_0 4—‘C
— 0 00EXi_OXc0c00CLO1—3
LU
3g0CD0 4—>C0>X00>0CLEooo'0"E0
0
= 0CLCL30
0Oit=o
0
o0coO004—0
c0E>40CLOO0JD"300'E
c00
§ £ s *CL 0
I I- C£ 0 .2 -a’4—'■n CD
OO0>COoCL0
CDCX>o
-Oc0XIo0o1—CLCL0
0g"9.'o0x
=3E
CD CD3 -i=0 30Oi_CL
c0E3ooTJ0OC0g’5O)0>03Occ0
-C a^ o 1 > I ^0 20 ^g I00>O0CL00CL30Eo
0X*-»52>h(03O
0
XDC0 inc
lusive
sa
fety
stan
dard
s.
Ultim
ately
the
IFI
see
ks
to ful
ly int
egra
te
these
rai
sed
stan
dard
s into
EN
957,
the
Euro
pean
sa
fety
stand
ard
for s
tatio
nary
fitn
ess
equi
pmen
t to
ensu
re
that
the
need
s of
disab
led
peop
le co
ntinu
e to
be ful
ly em
brac
ed
in the
de
sign
and
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oces
s.
<0c
O0)O) CO
QJ -2 §> CO CM
5 -S|-- s f
® a ?± i CO -SLL +-* VtQ> 5 o> ® o
i | «3 .9 - cO 2- Q.C
— UJ ”m wCO rCOQ)
c
0cO0 o>CT5+■»
CO1(/)■Ds-0■DCro■«->co+■»c0£Q.
‘ 5O ’LU(0(00C
COcvi
0X3coI0Xi—0Xc0
-4—4CO•4—4c0Eg.'ocrLU
ooc00-Q0>0
o0o’
cl-Co1—0000QC
0Xi—0xc0
CO0c
o0 CD 0 4—'
CO000
y_000
xo0>0X
13X !
0X
0
XC000Xco4—*04—*X0i—oo00
EoS_44—0XcXCL-0
Xc00
-4—4i f—0
0C0EoooXi _0XC0
co o0 oE0 E E 0i _X
a oX X 0 _ 0 l l
o
0 it:
Xcoo0s—0
-4—> 0
01—0"xXO0 -4—>c0EQ.‘oO’LU
0cO
LL
0
0T3C13X0i _
‘ocr0i_J0C0E
■4—403X*00X0co000
c000-i—'c0EQ.’dxLUX0-4—;
X0s_OO<El
00ET3C0Xo00I—
■4—10JXI—0E0
c 0 T3 0 O
Zz XO)Co 0 X 0
— .5 " 0
0 — 0 E 0 x o 0
co0>o1—X
0 ,i=
o■c0X4—»oc00
0coLjXX<
DX£0c
0X>
-4—40o
X_c■4—>o0XEc0
X0
X0>0
X0
X0
Xc0
CO000
lOCDCD
o<co4—*0
0 . it£ Q
>4
X00
0X
-c00-44—o0E1—0
X0L—oo0
LL0
o 0X
= o > 0
_ XLL *o
0 X 0 0
XIc: o c
0 o
00o co
0JX"0_0X0 0 X
X_0X00
X1coc
Xc0
X_0X00
X
0
_0X’000oo00
X■4—< 0 13
c0EX
‘oX0000c
0>
"0J3oc
"0
_>4X0 -♦—»oc
-4—< 0 o
0X
co
-4—<c0EQ_‘oX0000c
co
’-4—' 0
■4—1X0L_oo0
0 X' 0 0 0 o o0 —
- - 0 0
0 o 0
c0 EQ.'o X 0
■4—4X 0o o 0
o co
_0I - 0o _
o0o ’X0
_0Xo0X
X_0X00
X
_0X' 000oo0
X0'oX0
00
0044—cX
' 00
X0
c0
X
0_0oo-4—*
"c0Eooo
X0
X0
' xEoo00
X- 0
c 0
Q_
c0EQ-'oX0
c0EQ_
'oX
LU
o-ooCM
X< o
0oL_aa
<
Xo
-4-<c0>00l _
01—000
04^cX)'00
X
o_00
Xc0co0-4—*
X0I—oo0
c‘0Xo
0E0
X
0X•4—40
Xs—0
X£=000
00o0JX0Eo0E0c0Eooo
X0
c0EQ-
'oX0
oc00’0coo0c'0c'0E
Xc00■coXXo00
XL_0
Xc0 -4—'
<S)0c
o0 X 0 -4—'
CO000
co0o
XoX
Xc0co
_0X0
o0
LU
X01—0
X'0cooc00
X00
X■4—4c0EL_
'0XE>>
Xo
X1—0
Xc0>%
Xo
X1—0XXo
X00
oo
Xo1—X0
0XDoI—X
-4—4c0E1—■0XE
0X1—0
Xc0-4—400
X_000
XXc0■4—4c0EQ.13X
LUXc
"g'0
h -
0co0
CO
0Xc0 -4—'
COc00Xo
X LU ccis 10 0 X
LU
0Z 30
Xoo
c0Eg'0XE
o0
LU
co0
X0I—oo0
X0c44—0
X00
o
oX0■4—*0o0coXZ3
X000
X0
h*. 0
requ
ired
to m
eet
the
need
s of
each
im
pairm
ent
grou
p.
0)c
O©o > < o
© 3 g> 0 <N
4 -» I — -
0 1 u
S'S J-
* = 1 .ti co -»LL -M ^Q> S © > 2 o» C CMw S — 3 . S - C
(0
Oc 3 - a
n i ^ rCO CO 0)
s
c
0
05
0504—
0JD0i_00
O
ooCN
Q .<
0o0o
4—'0
01_oo0
oJDrek-(00
QTDCre0C0E0k.
‘5o -0
O '
re 05
o
0 2CD (1) 0 JZw "I” !w
0
0o
H—* 0
ID0k_OO0
TD0i_
‘ocr0
0 >0 'jz o 0^ ~
LU o
0E0JD
-*—*0
E0c0E0k .
‘Z3cr0
c000
LU
0000LU
0 -4—>M—0c0
-Qi_0
TD0
00
P
00
000CL4—>00Eq .
‘ocr
LU
0j z
ojd
00
•coQ_
0
0-00Coo
000
Q .
0 ■=;0 0 0
0JZH
0000O0
TDo
0JZ-4—'
0oc0
.cc0
TD0o
DJD
00EQ .O0>0
■0
0■0>Ok_Q .O
JO000
004—
J DJD0i_00
Q
000
00EQ .‘0cr0
0EQ .0cr
LU
0
o_co00i_000
J D
JD0i_00
Q
000
o
‘0o
'0 ’E
.b 0
o ®
E H 0
c
«+—»0>00O00CD00
0s_0
TD'00Oo
00o
£0
_c
=00
0Eo4—<0S_0
"o .Q .00
0CDTDJ D
£oc
k_o0Ec0O
i t00-1—»o0>
-t—'c01—I—DO
00i_k_0o0k_0
■0000o
-4—*005
00>0
TD00
00ECLO0>0TD0s_00
00E>0
0i_04—<04—0
JZ
0TD00 4—t
</3 o £
0CD0 -♦—»C/3TD0o00
JZ00
o4—> _0
TD04-<0i_OCLi_oojz0
JD
0o
00 t_Q .i_0 4—>
•E 1
o .5
0L -co £ 0CO
0 —J Z 0
0 0 CLc 0 EQ .
'0 cr LU
00 *OCL4—o
00CLo
o0COCO0TD000 4—• 0 0 E 0k_’0cr0i_0Eow
o00
TD0
00E0oo
TD0
0
00Ooo0o4—> 0
00
0
0JD
0
00O'00000o
0
0l_oo
<
0l_0
"co0
Eok_4—
o0
JDTD00
0 0 0
lZ— 0
E o 0
TD0
TD00 4—> 0
0
0
s »
0O )
0 .E 0 0 0 0 0 0
oi_0000
QC
0
00Eooo
TD0
'jz
TD0 4—> 0 0 0 0
0 4—> 0 0 E 0k_
‘ocr0
— 04- JZ0 *-
CL ■-0i_0
"o_CLo0
JZ 0 0 - JD
E =0 > 00 l_00 0o 00 o c 0
TD ‘Z5 05
TD 0
0JZ
05Z5o
00ECl
'ocr
LUTD0
0oo
<
00
O
TD0
'00TD0k_OE0Eoo0
JD
JO"00E0k_
'ocr0i_0
00000i_05O
O0
'oCL0
0JZ
0i_0
QlCLO0k_0
Oo
_0JDJD
0>00i_04—> 0 0 E o o o
TD
0Q .0
JD
0TDk_0
TD00
0EEo
C /3
o0o 'k_
Q_JZo1_0000cr
r -in05
0TDC0-4—1
CDN -LOCD
zLU0
0XL0CL4—> 0 0 >
JD0i_0
JZ
CLEoo
0zsE00E9.‘zscrLUTD04—1TD0k-OO
<LU _
C0EQ .
‘5O ’
LU05Cc
‘rek_H
reco
"■Ore4->
cn
o
0TDk .reTDcre4-1
<ncre0aok.z
LU
0o9TDTD0
4—>*200
JD
00OCL
00
JZO )
0
0
0
E0
0>0
U)0
004—
00500
TD
0>0
_oo0
0
0o00
XLoQ .
0
TD00'c05OO0
D -LO05
O .B
0JZ4—>
JD
TD0Q .O
TD0
000
JD
00
0TD00 4—>
C/30
C0E9.'0crLU
F I-
0 Co
"'4—» 0
S C/3
0 4—1 0 0 E 0k_'0cr0
04—>JD0s_0
JD
E0E
JZo0LU
— 04—> 0 0 E 0
0 >% 00 — crE 2 0^ cr0 *”0E 9.'0 cr 0
0JZ
0 E
& I d
^ ? g 0
O
0TD00 H—*03
LU
00E9.0cr
LU050
"00
cT*00o4—<JD
03
00-4—*
EEo
O
0■p0
TD0
JD
03000CL
20
LU0
XL0CL
TD0TDTD0000
JD
O000
JZ
0TD00
0'o0Q .03
00D0>0
_0o0
00
JD
o
will
be re
quire
d to
refe
renc
e the
ap
prop
riate
inc
lusive
sta
ndar
ds
in th
eir c
ount
ry.
Thes
e IFI
Fitn
ess
Equi
pmen
t St
anda
rds
- St
age
One,
hav
e be
en
adde
d as
a re
fere
nce
to the
bi
blio
grap
hy
of the
EN
957
Stan
dard
.
c l
a>c
O00 ) to
» 5 §> 03 CM
0 ' =
5 - S o .
■ £ mCO r
8 * 1
g a ?± f c o - y
LL -M CD 5 o> ® o13 . 9 - c
o d a
c— lu It*
M w w rCD(D
C
c0E0i _
3cr0s_
CDC
JCos__0i__0>oC/5
C0EQ .3cr0
0E0
"roZ5
-g>3C
0
r^-LO05
• = H IZ3cr0L_
0>'0JDO
_c4—*o
_0M—0L_
o
0
00
TDi _0
t dc0 ■4—>
CO0
C/5■d0CLs_0
0JZ
0
0
c0EQ .
‘Z5cr
O LU0
TDs_0
TDC0
CO
0 0s_ <—0 > o0
JD
C0CLEo
O05C
o 0
JD
0 £ C/5 =
£ Q E E o
Oco
4—> 00
TD0
00
TDCZ0EEoo0
I -
aiTD
0CLOi _O
LUCL0E0
co
_> .
ELOOOCMJZo0
0
0~0>0
O
0£o
X
o05
tooE
0CL
OnoCLif)
JZ ±= &
05JD C cz LU o
0
0>O00i _00JZ
£ TD C
c ® 0
I i .© 0 JZ JZo0 ‘r
O' 3E00 4—>c000i _CL0
w r r
0
TDc00s_03 .CLo0
04-44—0c0JD0
JZ
TD0D05i _0
TDC0
TD0
£0 -d
TD0
0 C 0
C 0 0 0
>
34—12000
JZ
_0 o g
3 0 CL
£ o0 JZ
& *
§ s£ sEE o
ON - LO05zLU0
0c0CL4—>c0Eg_3crLU
co0>
4—>04-4c000S—CL0
04-4'l .CO0
TDCZ0
0C0CLt :0EQ .3cr
LU
0
0JDE0E
c0ECLo0>0
TD
C0EQ_
'Z3cr00>'0_ooc
CLCLID0
4-4c0S—0
td
00
TDL_0
TDC0 *4—1if)4-4c0
0
■g CO
a>
E a
3orLU■Da>
+■»
t da>k .oo
<
co
-4—*0g15Z5CL
0
05C
TD0i__OO0
TDC0
— 0
^ 0
5 =&CL
g 5
CZ0EQ .3cr0
00o0Ql
r^-o
04-400o
JD
0
id o
o.3cr
LU0c
O
0050
— 0
000
JDL-
_0o050
= 0
s. i
c 0 EQ - 'Z5cr 00 >‘0
% a .E QJ
0 g0 = 1JZ0TD O O 0500 >0
= 0 — 1—0 05 0 C 0 E 0S—O 0 0
CNJ
0
05C
'i_o0c0
ooCMi—0
JDE0o0
Q
051—3
+->314.a )
s i H
LO
cvi
0 0c ~ O 0 TD c0 ©
JD LL
5 C
O ^ ^ 3JZ cro LU
= 0 ~ 4—>0
TD CZ 00TD0E0
JD
00005O
C0050TD0
Jd
0JD
0JDQ. -
CO O O CM _ O
z<
CZ30o
_0CL
0JD
0"E0TDC0
CO0
CO .20 c
O0050 -4—<
CO
JZ
0JD^OZ3OJZ0
O004-4C0EQ .Ocr0000c:
0
0
oo> .TD00i—00
0O
30
LOOOCM05c
CLco
TD0JZ03oCL0JD
O
C 0 ECl_o0 > 0 TDTD C 0 c05 0 0 TD4-4C 0 E g_ 3 cr
P ©0
o . 0 0 gTD C0 ^
TD C 0
0
c0EQ-3cr0
c0EQ -O0>0TDTDC0c05‘00TD0
TD0to0>_C
TDC0cg’0ooc
I-0 05 0 -4—»
CO
0TDL_0TDC0
TD0O01—JDE00>0JZ0
CO o
c0EQ -3crLU000c
>% 00 >
'4-4 '0 O CL
^ _ 0
05CJd01—TD_>%4-4C0i—1—Z5O
coTD04-4mZD0s_05Coo ne
eds
of ev
eryo
ne.
Ultim
ately
it
is now
up
to the
pu
rcha
sers
of
equi
pmen
t to
selec
t ac
cred
ited
inclus
ive
fitnes
s eq
uipm
ent
to en
sure
th
at t
he ne
eds
of
disab
led
and
non-
disa
bled
pe
ople
can
be me
t as
servi
ce
prov
ider
s.
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
</) cQ)
E<D
'5 cr a>CZ .5to
£0EQ.
'5orQ)
4 -O0)E0
0o*-*
_0
.a0oQ.a0(/)£0E00
0£0o
£0(/)</>
LU
c £E 5l l-J Q
cO) a)i i I I
■a co a>n Eo '(5 £ 9 E
>*~a co a> QQ Ei- .E0 0 a aS i
\
s
s
s
s
c .2
£ 0 ■e£to - c"O 0c o iS 0
0C J-0 Q- 0 oo °-2 S-Z3 TO LU JZ N- '1in >cr>
S i § .!■3 g_>i LU 2- CDE c
■*-’ I—12 TO o E c += 0 .0 ( 0V-> ”0cr iS 75 LU CO >
\
\
TOC00■c0a.CDc> co CDE 00 0"O0O 0
JZTDC s—
— oo 00 c0001—
0coco
CLE
o o_ o0 .c 0o c4—• o0 o0 c
O Z3H—
S
0 •4—' _0OJZCL0T3c00E0!_M—0
c00
0JO4—> 0 0
-I—>czook_0_oool_0_0o
\
\
\
\
\
CL0CDocoo
TO 0 CO0
0 13o >JOO 0
\
\
\
0Q.CD0
\
TD00000EoM—0CDC0
JZoo>%0000i_0
JDTOC000
TOC0 c
JZ oJZ ■tJCD 0oX CL
_0CL0 0 CL
TO_0JD0CO
TD1Coc>JO_0JD00ZD
TDC0_0.0<000oo<
G10
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
S w- I Q
co ) a>.E Ek. s_
(/)«4->ca>E<D
c_ a>
1 W 'm” TO> Q.
■o cO ©CO El .O (0£ £■ O E
x c o © m Ei_ .!= 0) (0 a q .
zdo
_cCDDO
0o
V-* CO‘ l_0oCD1—CDJZo
o13XoQ .
TDCCD
CDC0 -4—»0
TDCD )00
TD<+—O>4-4—1
_c-4—'co
O
\
o0JD<4—O0CDCCD0
TD
0
0Q .O0Cl
>4_Q00D
0000
0_0-D 0 C -C© D )
C _0 _0-0 c0 C-4—> 1— 0 0f? < 0
0
00D
C0
XC0CL0
X
x‘0o
0E0‘d0
JZo0
C 00 a} £ £■2 ■- 0 oX -o£ © 0c EQ_ —cl£ 0 0 >O )©
2 & 0 CL
UJ _Q
\ S
\ \
CDC
TD_Da
_ci—0
X 0000EoV—H—XI 00i_0Q .O0
JD
CD'0I
\ \
E0oM—0>
XoQ .Q .Z3
CO
\
CD|C
X3OEg
'EocoCDi— 0
M—o
Ei—a0
Xo• ■ Q.
2 a .CD 0 ~ 03 1& 1■s00
CO •
\ \
Xo
-CZ0 d)
— § c XI 5 2W Q.9> 00 O C 0 £
0 o
0
00
© 8 0
o - |
c 0 .2 " ©
o q5 0 >2 © Q."—& 8 -Q ZD2 E 8© V- £ |■8=51 1 O t
£ -2
CD|C
"i__
00.CZ0TDC0
c0E0>oE
xoClClZD0
XC0
c0EcO)*0>4Xo
JD00
" v _Q .Oi—Q .Q.00i—ZD0CZ0
_0JD0 -4—' 0 ZD
x '<
G11
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fi
tnes
s Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c0)otocoo
c i= F 5TO(00) .*2
cO) 0).E £©
£ Q
TO C O © CO E- \ © (S£ £■O E
~o c o © co Ei- 0 0 a a
\
\
\
o-O u. c 0
■Sia> 0"CO }r O °o . td— i_0 oQ. O O =-t—'CO
o o c0 C D ) 0
® IE *5 0 §■ 0oQ.O"co
0
oc00 0 ■g
0) 'co0 TO 0£ c ‘c0 0
J I 0JZ
TO -t—' o0 JZ 0-+—* 0 O
0 )"I— Eo TO 0c 0
0 i_M—"co 3zi 0k_ -1—> _0 TOc C0 0 0
a szJZ
S
\
Q.O
TO 0CO j r i |—
co "
Q "ro "co . » 2
® o 8 co r hr §) g oO ° — c
TO0TOTO00
JD
0 _0
O °
0 0 0 £0) c 0E _ “ 0 -tim ° ^0 CO ,—v T C T35 O 0O O 0
CO
_0'cot -CD
0a. c
o^ COc
oCl0 iii - -t-*0 ) =3 O O -Q 0 § T 3 to
2 to “ 0> S 73
TD
O 0 0 CO CO0 "0 g
~ o0o >
JD TD O C-o 03S S - o0 D) ~q
C£ TO 0
O C
TO
1 - -Cw 0 0 TO
0
=6 g>TO O& TO
(0_Q)
O0)coo
c ■=E 5I »- i a
0) 0
11 1 E
c — 0
0 ■- 0> a
> * - to c o © CO £k_ . i© 0* £ P E
T3 C O ©00 Ek. .!= 0 0 a a
\
\
_coCl0
TOTOC0o1—CD
J*CO0
JD
\
O 0
v SN Q_
8§0
^ C 0 - CO) © 1- 00 0
—I o
\ \
CM
OTOcz00
0TOc00)c
0TO-*co0
JDTO00M—0
■0>Oi_CL
O -*—<_0JD_0'co>0cotocZJM—o
TOZ3<
0Co
■4—*oc13M—0
JD0EE0i_0 )o
0
o0JDTO0a0
JDTO000
JD0"i_0>
G12
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
cCDEQ _
'5crluO )
C
’E‘E
U )cCD
+-«CO
c ■ =
E 5I i
- I D
c0 o £ §111 E
> *■ o co re co Ere re* £ 9 E
■o c o ©
00 Ei - .1=re re q . a
S i
\
S
\
CMnCD
Q_N -LOCDzLUM—O
0•*—>cCDECD
crCDi_CD
CDC
00E
1 § 0 -jz— O JZ 0.g>oISS Sj1 1 LU £
\
s
\
%
\
0)0>0CDc
I xoo
\
\
0-O0>CD
JZ"OcCD0
CwoCD -*—>0
_Q
cQ .
£O O ©O ■+■; _<D 0
0 £w g> £ 0 £0 CD £
\
CD'00
s s \ \
\
\ \ \
\
\ \co
0■ a
0>CD
JZo . . 0■c §g E- m O i : CD m—E oCD 0 C T 5
1 1
0
CD
0C
'CDCDCD
0CD
-4—'co010 -I—>CD0CO
0E0
‘ cCD
JZo0E"c0E"0
T J<
0- DC0i_CDCD
00oCDt0
CD
CCDC
CD-1—> 0C0>0
CD000O0C
0i_0
0Co
■4—' 0 oQ .
re00
X !re00
S<
00
' oi_0X0
"cdco
oc13M—CDc
IDT 3
00D
0 -t—■C
OCL
00TDCCD
. QreCO
G13
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
c0)£Q.'5o-LUO)C'E’ro
O)cQ)-+->(0
I 5I I -I O
cO) (U■i iI ' I
> 4-■a co a 00 E.b \a) ro* £9 E
■D Co a> 00 E>. .b O 0a aS i
c0EQ.cr0
4—o0o0Q.0
g>"0
■c0"co
\
S
■eoa .o.13CO_>>0>"o0
o 4—>0 4-4
J Z o0COCO CD
0 co ' L_o 00 "O0 o-- co0 1—1_ o
T Dc
4—■ I—
0 '0X S I4—<
0
1 = ro o0 ZCO — 0 -C0
1° > sco 5D) 0
X 000 Oi i c0 .E c > jz vo co E > .9-
»_ 00 O’ co 0 0
E>>-4—*c0~o m=C frr ZDQ- o Ef 8 ",iW
0 n (/) — C-2-jz clO) 0 _£= > _
O0 c<$ P O
G14
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
cCDEQ .
‘5u-hiU)cCO
U)c0L .
+-»CO
? 58 2
cO) ©I i| ' I X £
> » + - ~o c o ©
CD E 1- .!= © 0£ £■ 9 E
-o cO ©
CD E1— .1= a> co a a.
0•cCDQ .0C
inaCD£CDC
\
l l o
\
CDcU—> CD 0 C/5
CD
0•*—>CDEQ .
0ico
0
C 0 O -O0 CD
g ®~ CDo f:© 0 0O "OE 0CD 0^ 0 0 Lr
-E ©"0 — 'c a L - 0-4—»"D 0
-ro:°0 o 0 -C 0O C c .2O ro0 c -tJ 0£ 0 0 00 s_ 0 Q_o © 0 ££i—
m |O 0CL E
\
c0JO-t—'>.■0-0Li—00©■---TDC0JO0COJO>0JO003730■OC00CDC0JO001>.000 00 00 coTOJOc0 0l_0X
S
\
g )0
CDLOc\i<-t—o0-i—•c0E0o
_c
E3EX0
\
_0JO_0
0>00cooa.o0>000Q_TOco00>
-4—'o<
\
\
0C £_0 o S "o-Q s—O) O C 0
±J o 0 CJZ 0 "9I IQ_ 0 O JO0 1C a. 3>%!£ -a 30 -Q 0 0 =5 0s- JOo o
c 0 — — O
CMJO 0 = LO0 T— >0 "D - C 0 0
\ \ \ \
LO
00000■g'00JO£0c0
g )'0
000<io0JO
0JO
0000■g'00JO0
_g■oc0X
■g'0>>
15oEs_0JO■*—11os—oI—'0JO_o00
0
000OO001—0 -t—> 0
CD
_0JO_0
'0>0•4—>c0E■*—>03TD0Co
oE
<4—o0CDCO0
X
G15
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
c0)Ea3crLUU)c(3
C(3o"(3T30)a.
c =I 5I I-I Q
c03 o£ E
| ' lx E
c— o
P~ CO > Q.
■D Co <i> CD EI- .!=O (0£ £■ 9 £
T3 c O 0CD E«- .!= 0) (0 a a
C/3■cCOQ_0_Co fl)(0 CE-s03 CO
I ILL O
C/3C'co0 3CO0 CO «*—> c o01
C/3•4—>CO0(/)
\
S
S
\ \
0Q .0s_
U3
o£00jzo3000O01=0
\
S
0
c<DEQ.‘5cr
LUO)CC
'(3
C<3L.o
"(3T5<Da
C =E 5
ro0
c03 0.E E
| tx E
TJ C O 0CD ES_ .!= 0 0* £ 9 E
"O co 0 CD EJ- .1= 0 0 o. a
\
\
0
00oc0Eot0CL-i—'3o j:i 0a0
- Q"O00M—o
3<
\
\
\
\
\
"Ocz00CL0
0 3Ct /33T310
o000■g>oi_CLo0c0o-O g 0 -Qa. EQ) —JO0 .£ J* c
—I 0
\
\
0E_0JDO0C £_0 _oS oJ D <+-
0 3 Oc
0
0_0 CL O 0 tCL 3>> t3
-o =30 0 0 3 0 i- SZo o cz 0 ■-0 ^
= LO0 T—>0 "OCZ 0 0
\
TDc0_00ID0CL0tt=00 3c1Eo
0 .LJ ^ 0 0 CDJ0 ^ 0 -o D CZ Q. 0 O 0 0 0 O 50 0
•5 « CO 0 £ t 0 o0
\
c0JDE3O0''—0-*—>0000-O00JDi_0M—0c0-4—'o>+—0JD_0‘co>000O0t30io00 0T3 0CZ0X
o>o
\
CO
0 3
0G
16
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c_c/>
1T5CSo
5 «-I Q
c05 a).5 E
| t1 E
c_ CD
I ~ (0 > Q .
TJ C OCO E<d re
* 2- q e
TJ Co <d co EL. .1=<d re a aS i
S \
\
\
\
■D00QJ0
s
\
0
05c00
SZ
•a
0coEE ^ c <°E 0co Q_ o 1
N- TD LO 0 05
•— 12 0 > 0 OQ .
co Jrto o
LUt_0Cl
0<
¥ 0jS re ■*= t
\
\
00o
t3005C'c'co 1— ■4—>0
o£05c
_0
0-C
TJ0 CO2 -C >(0 0 o Q_
I w Is- m m *0 ro^ 2 ro
a)§ «- IS
O Q .C D
\ \
\
\
\
%
\
oL_
C 0
■Si0 00 £ o ° o -o
— s_0 O CL Oo ="05> Sro o c0 C 05 000 3 Clcr Oo 0 0CL 0 >No -C O"0 M—
Oc0
>> 0 050 i_c 0 00 "O E05i_ 0 0
0 TJ i—E0
c0
SZ£c
TD -4—t 00 SZ *«4—»
0O
05 Q_0
O ■O '0c 0
> 0 i_M—"0 M ll 0-4—' _0 ■0c C0 0 00 SZ SZ
JJ)
E■DCSa>
E 28 3-I D
c05 0.E E
c — 0
0 ■“ ~ 0 > a
> *- ■o co CDco EL_0 re* 2 9 E
■o co CDm EL_ .!=0 re a a
\
V
0
"Oc0TJC0-c0~00
00oc0E* _ot0CL-*->3O-Q0XLa0
.otd0a£o -*—»
TD3<
S
o
wor
kout
____
____
____
__Low
le
vel
step
on an
d of
f
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
(/»CD4CDEoU)i-
LU>TJo
CDj-CDaa3
E3 3-J Q
co) a> .E Ero ■= ® a 1 E
c — 0)1 E~ '5> Q.
>"2 ■o Co ©CO Es_ .!=® ro£ o-9 £
"O cO a> co E >_ .1= <D (0a a
\
Oco-eCOC l
0_c
O a) 0 .£ E-gCO CO
I IO
LL- O •
\
S
%
co04COI—
"coo£COCO
JDo3CO
CO0o0t0
\
\
\
0
00oc0E1—ot0Q."3oJD0o0
JDT 500M—03CO
>
\
0 o 0 ~ CO
0 £
i§g>4=> 3co ‘5
cb 0S 0CD O — -♦—»
ra g> 0 .E> J = O coe i^ 0 c CO0 O T3 L_
S 1Q- o-g ©1 £E ^ 0 >4 "co>, 0w 5CD CO C >•J= o0 c © mco E
CO
G18
In
cl
us
iv
e
Fi
tn
es
s
In
it
ia
ti
ve
Fi
tn
es
s
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
St
an
da
rd
s
- S
ta
ge
O
ne
1s
t A
pr
il
2
00
4
to
30
th
Ap
ri
l
20
06
( / )
<D+■»<DEoU)LU
■ ooCO0)a
a
D
ES S
-i a
co) a> E E
1 1 1 E
c_ o1 I0 ■ =jr R3> a
~o c o 0 CO EL.0 TO* £ q e
■o C o a> CO Ei- ±0 TOa a.
\
\
0
TO0OCTOEL_o
t 0 Q. ■+—• Oo
JDTODJOTOJD"O00M—o
"OD<
\
CDC0CTOi_OEL_TO
"t o"O0a.
\
*0CTO0 Q. TO -«—> 0CD_C0
TO
00TOX)_ 0•=O TO0 OTO _ 0 TO
TD ~o > 0 O Q. 0 . - 2
B ro0 o ^ O TO CZ
1 X 3
■E i0 —JQTO .EC—I TO
\
" OcTO0CLTOv_
0CD_C013
tTTO
O0TO
0■g>oQ.O•0j*:cTOi_O-§ 0Q. E _0 — - QTO .E c
— J TO
\
030sz
TDCTO
TO
DCCTOi _OH—o
JD0 3c0
TOiCTO
o_0JD
TO C
"0 .2.5, To 5 Q
\
\
0c £
_ro oS "oX 3
0 3 Oc0
0_0 CL O JD0 nCL ID
0 -Q0 0 ^ 0
0 •“ ro~ 10TO >TO
-t—>TO 0 0 i_0
" O
\
_0TO000■g'00-Q
£0CTO
\
CD
JD0 3
0
O0
X 3
x:0_gM—0JD
TO000■g'00X30_0
T 3CTOX
■g' t o
15oE1—0 x1ooL -
TOx:_o00
JZ£
TO
Eoi—M—a0c
TO
000OOTO
"t o
01_ro
m
G19
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fit
ness
Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
0)<DC
IEo03
U )c
oo'
c ■=F !q rerere
cO) (D.E £
I t
c — 0
I E~ re > a
■° ? o ooo Ei - .!=re re* 9 9 E
~o co re 00 Ere re a aSM
\
\
00 c ■C £
s E - ®0re m—
E ^a) 0 C T3 w1 .E .Eo CO Q_
I I .
\
S
0
CO
%
\
\
\ \
\
S
CD
s s
if)0c!Eo0O )csoa:
E 58 3-J Q
cO) 0.E E
1 1 X E
C _ 0
S I 0 ■= ” re > a
> +* T3 co CD 00 Ei - ±re re* 9 9 E
> ~ T3 Co reoo Ei— .bre re a a
E3 —
\
\ \ \
o
o lo o
re re wc oI—0re E c o
’■*—> o0 l-_
TD ® 0
COc
'o*20JD
T313o
\
\ S \
0
c £ re oreJDcoc
0Q .O0CD.>
JD0013
o4—
o0acre■g'o031L .0
J=1Co
4 —4 —<13
JD00jro
_c
oCM
0 JD CO
= LO CO t— >CO
re 0 0 i _0
T3
_0re
T30CD.0
O)C
§£o
0*20s_00oQ .O0
_0JD_re're>re0Q .COi _
0oo
oCM G
20
Incl
usiv
e Fi
tnes
s In
itiat
ive
Fitn
ess
Equi
pmen
t St
anda
rds
- St
age
One
1s
t Apr
il 20
04
to 30
th A
pril
2006
c
<A0)o.a0 )+■*CO■Ucro0)k.o
AE
(U+■»CO
E -Q8 I-J Q
cO) o.5 Ej- »-ro ■-
2 a
C_ a>§ EW "m — 0
> Q .
~o CO Q>DO Ei - . t O CD
* £- 9 E
TJ Co 0 CO Ei - . t 0 (0 a aDa i
\
\
CDC'0CDO0•acCD
0O0t30CDC'c‘04—
0JZ■4—'
c00J0
JD
00Coo0-Q0>
%
S
S
%
\
s
00~q'0+3co4—
44—
>c01
oo■e0
CLh»IDCD2LU"0"O0 CL -♦—» o£
JZo 0 0 M—o0CD■a0
~oco4—0CL
\
\
0
00oc0E4—Ot0CL
"3o-Q0o0-Q
■a0044—
"0D0>
\
■coCLCLD0>0>O0
=§ | 0 CD0 Co 'a o rs0 "O0 o •— 00 »- *- o
0 ©1 £
(AL.a>aaQ)+-»COT JCcc(Aa>
A
E
CO+-*CO
E3 «- I Q
cCD 0■E Ei - i_
2 5
>+- t j c o o co Ei - .:= 0 0* £ 9 £
T3 C O 0DO E 1—0 0 a. a a. c 3 —
\
c 0E a.D CT 0
.5 0
0co
u—< o 0CDc
‘clCL00c0
■Oc0CL0o
\
\
0
■Oc00
JZ-4—'
00oc0E4_ot0CL-4—<Z5o
jD0o0
JDTD0SO
~oD<
_00
T30CL0
i t0CDC
1Eo
00IDCLO>0o0
JD_00>00 CL 0 4—
-t—> 0 -4—'oo
S
tr0CLCL
0>40>O0O'4—'0
JD004—004—0031 ■0
SZ-4—>
04—
0C0O >4H—*
-4—> ;>0 ‘-4—'
g O0
00 CD0 C0 -4_0 Z30 ■a0 0
00 4—4— O"Oc
■4—> 4—
0 0X JZ-4—<
%
CsJ
■g
’0>4
!5oE0
G21
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fi
tnes
s Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
k.Q>C
to
TOo
HI"Uc(0(/)k.0)cTO
</)0)ok_o
E8 3-I Q
cO) (D.E E
| ! X E
c— CDi E ~ <0 > Q.
E
■O c o CDco Ei- .b0) re £ 9 £
■O Co Cl>oo Ei- .!=re re a aS i
\
\
CDCCOreoreT5cre0o4=D0CDC
'c're0
\
%
\
%
\
\
\
0
re0acreEo0Cl
"do
JDrej* .ore
-Q"O00>4—"reID0>
\
•coCLCLD0> ,0>oreo
4-4
_0JDre0re0s_00Z3
4—>re
_0 :-QCD CD CD 0 C O 'C O 3re “dCD O ■— 0 re k. •- o
reX £
(/)k .<DC
TO
TOO
LU■DCTO(/)i_0C
'to0)0)ok.o
E -QS s-I o
co> rer I3 'I
creEk_reaE
>■o co d> co EV- .±0 re & 9 E
> +s ■O c O 000 Ek.0 re a a=ai
_0JDre*</>0Q
\
S
0
"Oc00£
4-4re0ocreEs_ot0CL
13ojQrej* .oreJDT30ao«4—*
TD13<
\
0
C0E _0 4-4> C0 0 E E
1 S1a 0O £c o■— '
§ O
® E1CZD Q_| CL 0O -Si'J3 0 Ore c 0
CD JZ.E <i
^ re 0 tz
+4 ^c 0
1 1 re clCL CLre 0 O 0
\
■g‘re-4—»
15oEreEoM—a0cre
\
•troQ-CL
0>0>
4-4ore
_0JDre0re0i_00ID
4-4reJZ4-4
01_
30c0o > .4-44-4
;>0 4-4
JD0
ore
0 CD0 cO 'l .o IDre TJ0 O— 0re i_
OT3cre ‘0X JZ4-4
CNICNJ G
22
Inclu
sive
Fitne
ss
Initi
ativ
e Fi
tnes
s Eq
uipm
ent
Stan
dard
s -
Stag
e O
ne
1st A
pril
2004
to
30th
April
200
6
c
co■E0
0>0
-4—'ca)CO0i—Q .<Dcri—a)toz>
o5
_C/5'is *-»
2 ETS Icocoo
c o
o oCM
15 c:0
CL
"cCD
Ea . — —■5 l l l lc r
LU
01oo"roco’05CD
X
04— r-O C CO 00
.QE0
0
0 _M CLE wC 0O g0
"O0
"Oc 0
CON- LO 05
CO*OOCMI -FooCM
LUI0>
■*—>0c000i_Q .0cr=)COCD
<oo■*—>roc
T3i _01o
O
320it0
.ccoi_r0
_coL_0000cr
* -50000a:
0 LL0 0 —0 E 00
co0
0Q"O
oX0
JO05OX
o0X<~
O0
0£
oc0c<:
00o o Q_ 0 o
0 Q_
O ^riT w 0K C
t0Q .X
LUcg>00
Q0>0_=3Oc
LLoS
"0sT3L .CO£co
ooCM
LL<O
>-
0
0>
C.0E=3Oo
■O
"O0c
00o£0
CO0 Mr
0 .52C O o
o
o
co X co O
~o >-l—O 0
cp >> >O
oC0
4—> 0_ c ’cL_ o
c 0o 000 c
E Ei_ iZo o 0o <4—c >
X3 “ • 00O 0
s zOo
noc
0 <4—i_ 1—0 o
CO LL
0CL0tt
0Eo05
■4—>co
■00ocr01—0
JDE0
r oco
3XCLCM
oCOCO o00 CM
CO
320
r^-LOCM
"vTCOCOoh -lOCM
- a) 0 Tj- -<fr
0I—0oO '
CO
L _0CL,d 'o
0s zCO
0Q_0
s zo
'Ct'
+
0
"d-■'3'+
X0LL
<0 +■*(UEk .o
H -
Q)>
(Sc ^L . T -
a> o
cCDE3oo■uCO
ao000_c
0>0
_ooc
©o
oCDoCMh-IOCM
C0ca> n_j5*c5 >CO(0 —
+coa>otco
orccoo
Appendix H: Example of supplementary
test description and testers’
questionnaire including examples of
completed items
y
EFDS INCLUSIVE FITNESS INITIATIVE Test 1 - Ease of use of weight pin
INCLUSIVE FITNESS
Tester Number
Test Number
Test Objective
Test Equipment
1
Ease of use of weight pin
Pink Zone - Equipment A
Weight pins A, B, C, D, E
P le a s e c i r c le y o u r a n s w e r :
When facing the weight stack..........Pin A How easy was pin A to grip? Easy Average Difficult
Did you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
Pin B How easy was pin B to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
Pin C How easy was pin C to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
H1
Pin D How easy was pin D to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
How easy was pin E to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
Which pin was easiest to use? A B C D E Please explain why...
What would make this even easier for you to use?
Which pin was most difficult to use? A B C D E Please explain why...
Other comments, problems or suggestions
Please complete the following questions with the weight stack on your right,
H2
When the weight stack is on your right Pin A
Pin B
Pin C
Pin D
How easy was pin E to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
How easy was pin C to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
How easy was pin D to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
How easy was pin A to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
EasyYes
Average Difficult No
If yes, please explain...
How easy was pin B to grip? Easy Average DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain...
H3
Which pin was easiest to use? A B C D E Please explain why...
What would make this even easier for you to use?
Which pin was most difficult to use? A B C D E Please explain why...
Other comments, problems or suggestions
H4
V EFDS INCLUSIVE FITNESS INITIATIVE Testl Description
INCLUSIVE FITNESS
T e s t N u m b e r : 1
T e s t O b je c t iv e : E a s e o f u s e o f w e ig h t p in
T e s t E q u ip m e n t : P in k Z o n e - E q u ip m e n t A
T e s tD e s c r ip t io n :
• P o s it io n th e c h a ir o r y o u r w h e e lc h a ir to fa c e th e w e ig h t s ta c k a n d p u t th e w e ig h t p in in th e h e a v ie s t w e ig h t.
• F in d a n d re m o v e th e p in th e n p la c e it in th e to p h a lf o f th e w e ig h t s ta c k .
• F in d a n d re m o v e th e p in th e n p la c e it in th e b o tto m h a lf o f th e w e ig h t s ta c k .
• R e p e a t fo r e a c h w e ig h t p in a n d f il l in th e q u e s t io n n a ire .
• T u rn th e c h a ir o r y o u r w h e e lc h a ir th ro u g h 9 0 d e g re e s s o th a t th e w e ig h t s ta c k is o n y o u r r ig h t h a n d s id e w h e n s e a te d .
• R e p e a t th e te s t a s a b o v e .
H5
I NCLUSI VE FI TNESS
EFDS INCLUSIVE FITNESS INITIATIVE Test 1 - Ease of use of weight pin
Tester Number
Test Number
Test Objective
Test Equipment
7 1 0
1
Ease of use of weight pin
Pink Zone - Equipment A
Weight pins A, B, C, D, E
Please circle your answer:
When facing the weight stack.........Pin A How easy was pin A to grip?
Did you experience any discomfort?[Easy1) Average Difficult
res ) NoIf yes, please explain... e £ CdS
How easy was pin B to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
Easy AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain... OcavnV CiM 0-I V ^Al
How easy was pin C to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
Era(Yes;
(AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain... 7 ^ ^ c a n idc jn p
H6
pin 0 How easy was pin D to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
^Easvj A verag e D ifficult Y e s (N o /
If yes, please explain... ^ n
How easy was pin E to grip? Easy ( verage Difficult Did you experience any discomfort? (Yes NoIf yes, please explain... € A O ia jV v \ o tv i \C
Which pin was easiest to use?: r \A B) C D E
Please explain why...
What would make this even easier for you to use?\ VrAAci V V o O 'A e
Which pin was most difficult to use? A B C D (ePlease explain why... |\j Qy A<ou< j-V\ h ^ A \ C ~
\ O Q jf v'p
Other comments, problems or suggestionscJPZo Ol O' A o \
V" CCLAI C M <2
^ e i / c$A
\0^ . Vn
Please complete the following questions with the weight stack on your right.
H 7
When the weight stack is on your right..Pin A How easy was pin A to grip? ^sy Average Difficult
Did you experience any discomfort? Yes NoIf yes, please explain... .7
J O ^ l/\ou sjk W Cj-HT!
How easy was pin B to grip?Did you experience any discomfort? 1 ?
AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain...-G \ £ nou C'lf\ Vo
---CO------Yo
>
How easy was pin C to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
EasyYes
AverageNo
(Difficult ,
If yes, please explain... o ^ no V uV K
How easy was pin D to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
GasyYes
AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain... ^ ecy k f m ?
\>vV \V Vo V A A \~o
How easy was pin E to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
EasyYes
AverageNo
(Difficult)
If yes, please explain...
V\crVr <?VK(D \k cyW \ p < L
H8
Which pin was easiest to use? A B C ( p ) EPlease explain why... ' p j J J ^ J / c
c p ijP 7 u
What would make this even easier for you to use?VVN-e
n
Please explain why. * ■ V o vwocfif W 4 [C W;e \ r p Qt? f ctfv) / ( ' f ^ c d lJ f / 7 A?£/
Other comments, problems or suggestionsCV'VV
Wfct V o C j n p x oa^vlrc\ lA- C
H9
EFDS INCLUSIVE FITNESS INITIATIVE Test 1 - Ease of use of weight pin
Tester Number
Test Number
Test Objective
Test Equipment
1
Ease of use of weight pin
Pink Zone - Equipment A
Weight pins A, B, C, D, E
TI NCL US I VE FI TNESS
Please circle your answer:
When facing the weight stack..........Pin A How easy was pin A to grip? CjEasy) Average Difficult
Did you experience any discomfort? Yes C No jIf yes, please explain...
C c r y ^ c ' ^ a c jc rc z / h c /d ?
Pin B How easy was pin B to grip? EasyDid you experience any discomfort? Yes
Avera Difficult
If yes, please explain...f i f 'W - v je io V i+ - sfecL<_ . C U \>uJr n o t 05
f u l l as o fh o rg , .
Pin C How easy was pin C to grip? (Average,/ DifficultDid you experience any discomfort? (Yes^; '~NoIf yes, please explain...
A b i f iM c c y r i js r t n J jL e h o v t n o a M z c h / r W ' j f (o tfJ2d (u x n id /fo . f i n h a - id U - u ( l -km s m a 11 '
H10
Pin D How easy was pin D to grip?
Pin E
EasyYes
Average Difficult
If yes, please explain...C'IL b u f n e t pafhcu los easy to c
no tv pd-fiYppa arcav'sdlin p ( s m a l l T ■ 'tlsb sboyis
How easy was pin E to grip? Easy Did you experience any discomfort? / Yes
^Average DifficultS U c r^
If yes, please explain...tea j sharp -
Which pin was easiest to use? ( A ) B c D EPlease explain why... —
&SU2£t tc Y- £ o isd l&utsuste d xu L -k j hp
What would make this even easier for you to use?hosier cj jl'w ctdjU^'brrvnt s tra p nncp
stfztah jid ScmQ t-\JsQrs eJL/sz. \sxtt\su~ tVicx/) e /v \'fl'tQ —Itno b / ho/idi^~ idxorc j o t ______________________________
Which pin was most difficult to use? A B C o ] j D E Please explain why...
£ m a l l , m niahfirr, ne t eajy -H a. ocrvzft~ IctCM-Cj spCtCS /j~)X/)r7 OSt j\A£)j~YV7&0't
Other comments, problems or suggestions
Please complete the following questions with the weight stack on your right.
H11
l\Jo cAi'-cpenf f y r r r r i ' j y i r r t o n t^ ^ u ^ jbWhen the weight stack is on your right........ .
Pin A How easy was pin A to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
EasyYes
AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain...
Pin B How easy was pin B to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
-'Easy Average s< Yesr No
Difficult
If yes, please explain...
Pin C How easy was pin C to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
EasyYes
AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain...
Pin D How easy was pin D to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
EasyYes
AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain...
Pin E How easy was pin E to grip?Did you experience any discomfort?
EasyYes
AverageNo
Difficult
If yes, please explain...
H12
Which pin was easiest to use?_______/ A ] B c p ePlease explain why...
c ^
What would make this even easier for you to use?
Which pin was most difficult to use? A B C ( ? 1 EPlease explain why...
'i is W W tB+,ir roa c c d j n p /
Other comments, problems or suggestions.....
H13
Appendix I: Excerpt from inclusive
design standard
(IFI Equipment Standard - Stage 2,
Part 1 - General Requirements
and Part 2 - Strength Equipment)
Inc
lus
ive
F
itn
ess
In
itia
tiv
e
Eq
uip
me
nt
Sta
nd
ard
-
Sta
ge
Tw
o
</)cd)EQ)imm
3O"0o'"E0c0
O1
03CL
coo3
“DO
c0EQ.
cr0"toO
_0jQ0O
0■Dc0
-t—>cn-t—>c0EQ.3crLU
0JZ-t—<4—O0)
-i—>c0E0s_
3cr0oc
~ 0CL -C CL 00i_0 4—' 0 JZ -»—>
-*-<C0E0S_
3cr0i —
"0
0C00)0
004—'o0Q_0
CDo4—»
CNJ
04—*i—00-
"D_00 4—»0*00s_0JZO
— 0 U- — 00 0 JZ *-4-4 0
t -
0L_0
00
>CL_0>0£0
1
0 4—>C0E0s_
3cr00C30c0CD
0CL
04-4
1 I00 —C0E0s_
3cr0or
& s“ 8 c/d cl
0
c0EQ.’3cr0"0co4-4T3TD0
3cr0QCD)c
TJCoCL00s_1_Oo>.c0s_0>o0oc0"O0O0
00
0
0 4—>C0E0i_
3cr0DC
"0
0c0CD
0Q_
co-4—»Oc3E'oo
■o0
"o.CL00JZ0>>0
0
0Q.
0 3
.2 Eo “ 0 CL 0
0CL
Is-LOCD
LUC/DQQ
04—1CDCL4-4C0>
_00i _
0
CLEoo
4—*oc
00o■O4-40
c0EQ.3cr0
00o0x0
>,c0
"O0s—o o 0 4—»oc
0c0Q_•*—>c0EQ.3crLU
0
>>4—*j54—>0 0CL O
E c0
0 "O CL0 E4—» 00 0c >%CD M—0 i_
E 0>0i_ O
04—4
0 -O0LU4—> "o .c CL0 3> 0_0 00 JZs_
4—>0 0JZ 34—> E0 00 0E c
00 "o0 • —>0 0
4—<0 L_3 0E 4—>c4—> 0c0 EE 3
0CL 03 Qcr0 0
4—>c04—» 00 Ei_ 0CL i_Oi_ 3CL crCL 0s_00 Qi_0 >
5 0>4—< 4—*C O0 0E i_CL Q’3 0cr CDLU 04-4CD "5c >
"c0 OI- _ l
>% ■Os— C0 0c0 O4—> 04—>C/D LU
LUC/DCD
0CLoo00JZ
_0"0
0
0CL
h-LOCD
LUC/300
0ClOO0
0
O0~o0
-4—<3O
3cr0
"0
>CLCL0
00)04-4cn 1
-O0■0c0 4—>co-i—*c0EQ.’3crLU
0JZ4-4
o0
4-4c0E0i_
3cr0DC0JZh-
0CL
h-LOCD
C00CLOi_3 LU -*—> c 0 > _00>>c0*oc0>CL CL 0 4—< 0
C0E D>CL .E 3 = 0
0 *+—-t—1c0ECL ~ 3 O
0CLL_0
3cr 0>. c <0"OoJZ4—<0E4—>00 4—>"0 c00 4—>c 0 E 0i_3cr 0>4—>00 4—<0 ^— o00c0CD
>c0
0CD0 4—»C/D1
■O1—0"0C0C/D4-4C0EQ_3crLU
0
0Q.4—» 0 0E03E
00>o0
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Inc
lus
ive
F
itn
es
s
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
en
t S
tan
da
rd
- S
tag
e
Tw
o
o.3a>COTJcro(0c/30oo<
> -
O OT 3O£<D
(0■Ocre
■4-1
(/>
0
c0a:
HCL
0re0
£004—s_0
4—lc4—<oc
reJZ04-4c0EQ_
"Z3cr00
o0
4—> 1_reCL
reL_0 4—Io0i_
0I—0
"0cre0Ere
<4—
0
"0cre000oo<
c0EQ_
0cr00
Eo
000s_O)0oo
4—>co000Oore•ocre04—0Cre
04—0cre
0
EZ5C
E0ExreE0
Eo
~o0000OOre0)c0JD4—O_0JDreQ .reo0JD"reJZ 0 4—>c0EQ .
=3cr00
Eo
corec
oo"Ocre
4—>c0E0>oE
0CDCreED
E" c
Ere0
ore
0re0
_0CDCreJZoreo
i —
ClClre
c0EQ .Z5cr00
Eo
000L.CD0"Ocre
Z3cr0
re j i 0 4—>c0EQ .
3cr00
00130
LU>
0JZCD
Oc
0JD
Co4—>
0 oQ.
re4—« 000
re i f00ore4—1—30reco
4—>re0CLO0
c0
■0c0oi_CD0
D)0c01CL0
4—> 0E0ExreE0
0)0Xc01CL0
4-4
CO
OJ
reo
0>■00L_00re0EEEo
■00
>o
000OOTO
_o"reo
4—>
re_0oo
4—>
0re
oCL00-CCD
0
Cl0
4-40"redTJ’>■0C
■00 i—Oo re
■o o
CL ■=0 JD00E0CL0
4—> 0
CL0
4—> 0reEEor -0■000oX0
0)0JZc01CL0
4—> 00JZ
4—>
0L_0
ore0
03’0JZ
E0ExreE0
Oc
0)
0
0>000
0 c re
CL4-4c0
H |0* 0"W i f 0 LU 0 —
EEoN-
0)0
JZ
0
0O0■00
0
EEor -
-000ox0oc"reJZ0
Cocdc■0c0CL0~o4-4c0EQ-00"00
000OOre
s. |0 c 0 - -
1 ^ > 0Cre
0i_oE0s_
0cr0
re
04-4o0■0o
0
o00"o1—0X00
o01—0
4-4rec0
cn Si!
Editio
n 2
May
2006
V
0 1-> 0U)CO CO■”
COc 1CO "DCO s_CD C0c “D+-» CLL CO*-*CD CO>CO c3 a>
EO aC
3O"LU
t -
Q)0-l—*00
o _000Q.0
0"Oc04-4co 0
0CL4—>c0>_00i_
0
■00 4—> 0 4—> 000_0C3
CO
0
I-
c0EQ.
0C0o0E
o0JD000
l ® a; 0C 3
> C 0 O■0 0 0 0 0 JD
"0 C 0
CL
JD 0■s EJP Q- 0 ’5> cr 0 LU0 — 0 LJ-
cJD0>Dcr0
0
co-*—»0s_o0
O)E .E
003c
5 0C/) CO
0013CO00000"0C0
CL
c0EQ.D0LU
0 — > LL 0 —0 <D0 ■*=
M—0 o =3
E 50
0 o0 J£ > 0 0 0 0
0
c0E0s—Oc000Cl0
000
£0
C0EQ_D00
JX.O00000
<0«*-»(UQ)
CO
CN
<4- c0 O0 3
00 004-1 30 3
Os 0 h- O 1—> Q_ O CL Q
c 04-44—> 00 0 4-400 03 -Q 0 £ 03O
0L_
00 0i_0
000-4—» 0 0
000 0 0 O 0 00 0 0 X 0 00 0 0 0Z30
03DEE
4-4c0*4—» M—0
0OO
0"00 E
0E0 4—>c
00t_V—00C
C00
COLOO
000
0Q.4-4
O4—>00 > 4—> 0 0 04—>
CO 00 E 00
0 00 00 4—> E 0 C3i_ 03 ’>O0 0 0 0 0 0 i_
0
4—04—> 1—
OE00
LOCO4—0
04—<4—0
X00O
004-4O
Q.004-4s_ 0 0 0 4—»c O 4-4 0
0 CL > 0 _LJ 0 O0C 4—>c 0V-
c000
L_0 CO E
0 0 0 i_ 4—> £ O 04-» > 0 0 0 _o L_ Q.CO 0 0 0 03 0
0t_4—> 0
4—>c
003 c0 00 0
0 00 0 0 4-404—>r— O
0 0 0 0 03 E Cl4—> £ 0 0 0C 0O 4—>c4—>O
00 4— 4—>0000
0£
’004-40C
00‘O "0
0
0C
> !_ 0 O L_ O0 O O 00 M— O s_ X 0 —H—* 4—> 03 0 > 0> c 0 0 O— a) 4—> 0 0 Cl004—'O
E013
0D00
0 4—>E0
0 «4—*000
0i_000
4-4000000
0000
0O0
4—>"0
0 0 -*—*0
0EE
_o0 -4—»
00 'Oi_0 0
O4—>i_s_00
E0
0 -4—»C X 0 0 LO 03 0 0 > > 0
1 14—> >0 0
03 0O C 003 0O4-4C4-4 0
wCD 0 0 CD 0
i— X L_ E X E«4—* 0 0 4-4 0 00 0 Z3 0 £ 00 0 cr 0 O crCO 3 LU CO _l LU
0 0 CM0CL z CM CM
co £ 2
CDooCM
0
CMco
'4 - 4
0LU
Inc
lus
ive
F
itn
es
s
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
en
t S
tan
da
rd
- S
tag
e
Tw
o
I-Q_
OQ
t -
■000OX0oc
"toJZCOQ.0•*—>(0"to0TJ>•oc
oTO0
0)'0_ c
E0ExTOE0
COCO0
EEoLO’’cf
TO
CO-4—*OZ5"0o
■00L_ooTO
Oc
CD
0
0>0CO0
0cTO
CL
c0EQ.0cr
LU
0
EEo
o0i_0
-1—1TOC0
coCDc"0C0CL0"0
-4—*c0EQ.'0cr00
coco0ooTO
COCL0
-t—1COo
cTO
0oE00cr0
c0EQ.’0cr00
0co‘oL_0X00
■0ojDs—0Q.CLZ3"to
TOT3CTO
-t—>C/30
TOCL-i—'cTO>
_ 0
0s_
0
"00CO>"0TO
"too
o0CLCOCOCO0c=3
_ 0
JDTO0>O
0DC
00
c\i
0JD
TO0CO0JZ
CO »+—'TO0CO
co —
TO0CO
c0
CO0E■00~o’>oL_Q.COTO0COTOO
_Q00
0JZEoi_4—
0COo0X0
CO
c0EQ_0cr00co‘o0X0
0Cl
_0JDTO
-4—'CO>>
0CO0
0CL
0CO0JQ
-4—"CO0Ec0EQ_0cr00
0IDcTOE0i_0
"0 "00 0 > > o oE E"0 *55
0CO00
4—TOCOTOEoc
TOOCO>4
00
0JD-4—>CO0ETO0i_TOCDC’cTOE0i_
0
"00>oE~0!—
COTO0CO
0oco
0ocTOi_TO_0o
c\i
■0c13OL_CD0
J Z-4—*
Eo
co
-4—<
COoCL> , CD
— CO
TOO
0>TD0s—0COTO0E
o4_0X004—TOCO
■0cTO0
c TOI »t— TO
0
0>OJDTOCOCo©
-S- oJ-i w0CO
JDO
O Q-- -SJ= ^ 0) CD(D O
0CO0i_
TOJ Z_o00
TO
TO
h- LUCL >
CO]0IxCOL_o
_C0
00
CD0
ECO
" cTO
J Zo0E0
-4—'TO
LO
c\i
cLi 0CLOi_CLCLTOCTO0>TO
CO0ECO
TO0CO
_0JDTO0>OE*©
04—4—
•0
0>o
COTO00>OE
TO0CO
0JZ-4—'_0JDTOC0
LU I - > CL
■00"00
C ^ O > JD OCOOCLc0
TO
ECO
cTO
J Zo0ECD
0 .EC L - XO O0 °TOCO
0)c
TO
TO
■000)TO03C0CO
0JD■4—<CO0E
_0JD TO C L TO00
JD _
» I
1 ICO .
-+—»TO 0 CO
_0 JD TO 0 >OE
o_C000
J Z
<:0
0QC
co
-4—»TOL_0C L
O04—TOC/3
COc\i
0CO0
c0E0>oE"toco-4—>c0
c 0 -4—>c0>0
TJ- _±
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Inc
lus
ive
F
itn
ess
In
itia
tiv
e
Eq
uip
me
nt
Sta
nd
ard
-
Sta
ge
Tw
o
H O CL Q
LU> o
Q I -CL
c0E0CDC0i_i_0CDC4—>00CO
0 CO _C CD
LO4—— I—
o c ~ 0
01—
0cr0
0>oE'a?QC
N -
Csj
COCO
_0
CO_ c0)0
c0E0CDc0L_i_0CDC
-t—> 0 0 CO
0
COCO
_0c3
o>0
■O0X
CD
0 4—>c0EQ .0cr00
JD
"00C4—0■aCO
0C L
c0E0>oE0CO
Oi_0X00
0i_0J=
c0EcCD
00c\i
00E
-4—»c0
=3cr00
■00x
oc
0l_0
■4—» 0 sz ■*—>0 4—> 0 0 0J0-O00>O
E~0
c0EQ .
0cr00oc04—>000
0
Co4->0oC L
"0 C 0 4—>c0EcO )
"0-4—* 0 0 0 4—<O0s_i_oo
0
0s_=30C0
0Oc0s_04—0s_
"000>00>0
-C
0i_00 4—>0000i_0
00Oi_0X0>4
0EC L
0
CDC
0C L
C0
000
0 0 cn
03c\i
00■0
0sz
0
-O .a<5 5 "0 C 0(/)0
0 0 - 4—>c0>
_0
0s—
0
~o00>
■O0
0o
o0CL000
_0C
Z>
00>0
0sz0>>0
00"o1—0X0CDcs_0
■a003
■00~q>o
0co’0c0E
00c0EEo0000
■00
-4—»
oCLCL00CDC
0JO
0
0000
000O>0C L
EE"3-
LOCM
0c
01—
c0o0-C
0
0CL 0"0JL.
~ E E 0
E.E c Q. E
■00 4—> 0 0-JD0CDC
0JO
c0
04—
00
Oc4—< 0 0E>0
■000>os_CL0v_00 4—>001—
-Xo0
JO
0i_0
00crzso0
CQ
O
CM
co-4—'0i_0CLO
l o !£2
Editio
n 2
May
2006
V
0) K> O
O03 03■“ +-*
(/)c 1
■u</>a) 03c “D’I-* CLL 0
<D CO> +-»</) c3 0
EO Q_C ■ wmm— 3
O"LU
t -
</)J0
T3CCOXCO
O O■DO
a>
coo
a>>
coT5CCO■4-1CO
a>
cra>a:
>4—*
ExoL_Q_CJDjDJOCO>CO0JD03E0_0"DCCO
c0EQ_
cr00CO'o0X0"DOJDt__0£O
Oc0JD
— OT30 4—»000
0000
Oc0CO4—* 0 0 C/)
co
LU H > Q-
0 4-4JZ o+-* c
n 000CD•a0Q.o0
oc0JD
O
o0
0)0
o4—* 4—•
ExoI—Q.C"O04-44-4CO01—00JD■0c0JZ0i_0
0
<:_o0JD
JZ0_04—"00C.2 ^ .tZ 00OQ_0JD
"coJZ0_0■0C0
0C0
0i__0
4—
0 4—<c
4-4-CO)0X0
0 0 .2ID ~o TDC c C0 0 0X X X
CNco
OQ
0JZ0>>0
oc0
JD
0000JZ4—»O4—*>> 4—»Exoi_CL
c■00 4—> 4—<
01—00JD■0c0JZ-00X
4—
0i_0
0JD■00i—0000EEE
oCD
0Oc04—1
JO■0EdEx0E0■0c0EECO
0oc04-40■0E0
EcE
04—0c0
JDQ.4-4"5E£
jo0
o4—»0 4—»0 4—»OL_
00
JZoc0JD0 4—»00000JDC0
CD C
0 JD5 0
O 1 0 0 CD JD
® ® 0 *■'
0
OE0
E’cE0o
4—
0"DC0JZ0
0CD■o00TD0C0
"Oc04-4000
OEE
o io
0o0
JZ
0co4-40oCL
4-4Exo
COCO
o0000JDJD0C0
"O0
~o>o
0JD
"coJZ004-4c0coCLEoo"co04-4o01—4-40s—0
JZ4-4oo0JDT3c0JZo4—»04—*C/)
0JZ04-4c0ECL’0cr00JZ4—>
0JDTDC0JZ0
CDc00c0
00
JD 0 0 0 0 ETD ~ C =0 0000OO0
04—0C0
0JDJD04—>0C0E0
0JD■oC0Xo4—»0 4—»CO
CO
CD S2
CDooCN>40
CNCo4-4TDLU
V
0>>
05
O5H0D)0
- - CO£ i(/) “D CO »- a> 0 C T3 ^ C 11 G3
0 CO >
I I
“ Dcr
LU
t -
h-Q_
0JZ-4—»o H—
0 o-t—< 0re00
L_3
_0 O3_Q -t—<re 00 0>o £
E0 o
-4—>
Cd ■4—1cc 0o Ec 0o o■4—< re0 CLo 0Q. >_0 E■4—>re os_*L_ M—CLo rei—CL £Cl rere cc 0re Ec 0>■0 o0■0 E
■— M—> oOL . 0CL 00 re
JD 0
0 03 ’0E 0re/-V0 o •4—1V-«■ -t—> c
: 2 0 0•0 0 Ec! re
_Co CLjz c *30 cr< JD 0
■4—1c0 0E _0
; 0 "0> Co reX
LOCOT“
coECO'E0-Co0
c0£HMCO3■D<
O oT5O-C
0 0>
CC■Ocre*-<CO
0
c0O'
LU
■0cre
<nCOE0'cre
jzoreEcreE•4—>03
■o'<
c0E
-t—> 0 3■o'<
0c0E
0 00 clC E
> .0re00jQ
o0c00
"0CTO
= >> re --
0-4—*X0-0
- o0
00O
0re
0E0cre
_ co0
LU h - f -> CL CL
0 "re■0 ■4—'
c JZcre 0
E
0•4—>
j z c•4—>
-1—>0 0
JZ 3 E 00 ) T ? CL JZ
-4—»i—i— < 3 0 )0 0 " C
■4—> -*—> 0 -4—■M— C _ CL_0 0 "re O
E ■0"0 Q. ~ o re1— &_
0i_re 3 re■0 c r ■0 0c 0 c 4—re 0 re 0
-4—< -4—> JDCO JZ
•4—1 CO0 Cl 0 0
JZ-4—4 3 0
reJZ-4—•
JZ-4—>
M— 0 ) 4— 00 c JD O
-t—1 •4—> TD ■4—> ■0i_ -4—» S__ f—re 0 O re re
JZQ_ 0 >re
Q_-t—1 C ■4—> 0c 0 0 cre JZ •4—» re c> £ ■0 > 00 0 0 >0i_
• 00
-4—«re 0 c
0 "O 0 00 0 )JZ 0 Cl JZ4—> > 3 •4—1 cz
c re ■0 c 0•— 0 L_ --- 3■0 JD O ■0 Q_00 — -0 0
0 3re 0 -4—>
> c~ -4—> > 0■0 0 re ■0 0re 0 re 0 )0 0-4—> > C
"rec0 > "re 0
0 E "re 0 JD4— -4—> L_ 4— 4—O 0
3-4—>C 'O O
0 0 0 _0Cl Z O Q.0 re 0
0 J-2re
0 4— JD 0 CL0 O 0 re
_0 0 — _0 0c re re
JZ C 0D JD 0 = ) JD
C l =) -4—» 0 CO
CM
"0cre
I0CO
CO
c0E
-*—>03
TD<
Eo
000Oore
■o0■0
_ 3
OX00I—re0c0E•4—103
■01 re -*—> 00s_
oreJD
■0cre
0 0 re 00 0E oL .CLE o o
-4—»O c
0 0 o■0 __ 0 +- Zt : o^ 0re —
j z re'** - ~o r0 o 2 > >2 dQ- O
0)0
Co
-4—>
0 oQ.00Os_0X0
0OQ.00Oi_0X00
c0E0i_
3cr0i_
0
Eo
h- _
Editio
n 2
May
2006
o?
CD •“
. t ®+■» O)(3 co
—
- - CO
£ i</> -U (/) »- 0) <3c -u« c 11 *3
<]) (/) >
« £ - ES 3
“ 3 O'
LU
LU H- > O.
0DEu3
¥0
'cCD
JZo0E-4—>c0Etoo■o'0
-4—>001—_Xo0_Q"Oc0-4—*c0EoooTJ0
t -
0 0 cn
co
•4—I 0 o
CL
Nf
■O0 «4—»0000
Eo
T3 C 0
-4—<c0
3cr00
JZo0oi_
Q.Cl0c
0 o® u .W 0 (1) 0
JZ =5
- 5
(0°Q.0
_0_Q0>0J2
0 -4—<c0E0D■o'<
co
•4—< 0 oCl
00Os_
0X0
LU>
■00
C0"O
0_0O0JC
-4—> 0 oE000
-o0TD>Os_Q.0i_
000 3C
00Co0oQ.■o0X
0
_0o
JCE>.0o0i_
0 ■4—< •4—1_00~s_
0JCE13CcbQ)0COc
0E0>o
0 ■—
c 0
0co
-4—' 0 o
Q_■O0X
UO
LU O LU> Q h-
00T3-4—<oJC
0coL_oE
ooC\l
O)0
JZ
■O000
0-4—1o0 ■4—>0
JC-4—> 0 oE0COcIxi_
0
-00T3Z3OE
-o0>0i_
COc00i_
0
0Oc0s_
0M—S_
0 ■4-41cc0000
JZ■4—>0L-
0
CL0OX0incoL—oE
oo
_0JC0 -4—<CL0OO00s_
00COc
0E*4—0"0c
00)c 0-X ZZm °TO^ I—
CD
Xf-
LU>
000C001—00o0c
T30>4_0CL0
0JC-4—> 0 OE0COcIx0
0COcIx0
LU O> Q0
co’0c0Ebe0
cO
EE
LO
0JC
"0JZ000 3CIxi_
0E>c0
o — - -
O)0
0c0
JC-4—•00
E>«0
JZ-4—'
000O
JZO
JZ<:c
i—_0
" 0E0
0JC>0
JZ-t—'>0E0
JZ-4—>00
to JZZ3 O )O 00 JZi_Q . c003 EC E-4—' -4—> 00 x—0 CC 0O JZ. -4—4
0 0OQ .
00
0_N
if)I0O)CIx1—0
00
00 22
CDOOCM>40
CMCo
‘-4—«'~oLU
Incl
usi
ve
Fitn
ess
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
nd
ard
-
Sta
ge
Tw
o
(/>CO
cooi—3oooin
o o
-f—'
"ro3 crCD 13
<t)01—
4 —4cooI—3_ooo
LU
(/)4-4c0£oaEoo
0
a)oc00
3_oo o0CO 0
TO0 i—.E 0M_ _c0 t: ■0 —CO
0030ooc0
0
0~oc0o~CMCOc0
00E 15oQ_
oo
-4—»
"0a- 20 3
00u_
TOC3oI—03o0CD~o0 -4—»0 •4—< 0
3_ooo000
to0c4—0*00
0 4-4c 0 c oQ.Eo O>L .CD
E rc ©Q_ cdi _ 1—o o4— o
03cr0
0oc01—0
— ■o C 0 0 0E £
& •?
3O0 O1
0co-*->o3
0£0£OaEoo
00
~oc3os—CD
o0CDTO0 -4—»04—400!—0
0C— 0 •—
C0coQ.EoO
0CD0LOCM
C0
00.1 <0 >- 0 Q. b,03O ^4— o 0 O 0 _ -t 0C 3O cr o 0
0oc0i—0
000c0 .O)£ £
0"Oc0coo"d-c0
00E «■r 0
03 0. CD
0OC0s—0
3_ooo000
to0c
4—0TO
0 -4—>C0coCLEoO0"Ocoo0CD
0 0 -4—<coo1—13_ooO
£0Ea'3orLU1
04-»£0£OaEoo0■o£Oo0</)
TO 0O
TO0 0
-♦—*0 c 04—4 0 4—40 i_ 0i_ 0 i_4—0 4— 0
JZ TO JZ4—4 4-4
i_
0 3 0C O C
0 O 003 O 030 0 0
O 0 LOO 0 CMT_ TO T _
C 0 C0 C 0
JC 4— JZ4—4 0 4—4
0 TO 00 0 0_0 04—4 0 4—43
JO4—4C0
3JO
00 c LOCO 0
Q_CO
cE
c0 0
-C 0 JZ4—4 O 4—4i_ l_0 > 0
4—4 1— 4—40 0 00 TO 01— C i_CD O 03
4— O 4—O 0 O
0 CD 0O i_ OC O C0 4— 01— 4—4 i—0 0 04— 0
i_4—4— 4—
"O 4—4c ■O
0 0 00 0 00 i_ 0C 3 C
JC _o _ c03 0 O )i_ 0
1L
JO JO
0 10
0* o c TOc0 0
" 3
c0
C3 O 0CM 3 0CO 4-4
c0
0£
c0
JZ JZ-4—» 1 4—4
0 0 00 4-4 00 £ 0
— 0 —
3 01—
£O
4—43 0
!—JO 3 a JO 3O 0 E O 0
0 0 O 0CM LL O
CO LLC0 TO
C >c0 TO
CJZ 3 0 JZ 3I— O
1— TO l_ Oi_
0 03 £ 0 03-4—» 0 0 i_
O0
OO0
4—400l_
JsiO0
O ) CD CO CD CO
0>0C0coQ.EoO0
EL .
CL0
-4—43JO-4—4c0E0
=3cr0
13E'cE0
00JZ-4—»
to0 -*—»0 -4—< 0000i _4—> CooI—3ooo
-4—4c0coClEoO0-ocoo0CD01—0
0J O0 «+—»Q.0OO0O_00000j_4—4CooI—3_ooo
04—4
0JO0
iZ0
JZ4—4
c0
0JO_0’0>00
00Oc01_04—4—
TO000C4—4JZ03
"i_JOTOC01_3
_oOO>4— t :L_ c0> 0
EO4—4 Q
E 3OJZ 0
"l— "a0 s—,
_03 0
0 000 0
JC C1— >4—»
1 0£ >O 0
3—0 OO c
u<D
>
03 —
COOOCM>>0
CM
CoT3LU
In
cl
us
iv
e
Fi
tn
es
s
In
it
ia
ti
ve
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
St
an
da
rd
-
St
ag
e
Tw
o
"UO.£<4->a>
£O0o4-z >0 o> o
0■D£0■4->(O
a>
> -
croa:
COCDi_
*4—*cool_3ooo0CD
'5crCDi_
CD
0JDEdc0
0
C00E
0■ac300
000 JD -*—» O c
---- 0E0
0JZ E0 0 i_
4—
4—> JZ 0c K c0 0co 'o >40 0E -*—»
0-4—> 0
o 0 OO LL JZ>>L_ 0 0
30 C
~o 3 0c Ot_
0t_o 0 3o O0 o
CO 0 Oo'— ■ CO
>s!_4—o
0 -4—> 0o
0E0
0co
c o
-♦—*JZ 4— ■4—1 00 0 0f— ■4—'
3 JZ L. 0-4—> 0 0
-4—>JZ-4—>
0
Eo
0i_oo
CO 5 o 0
oc0
CD-f—» 0 0 CO
LO
>4
0
oJZ0=>
>O LUO >
c0E00 00 £5 oL-q- rO CD 0 CLCL CD 0 C
0c3Oi_i_30
0JZ
o0E0i_4—
0
0 JZ0
0 -t—■C 0 c oCl
Eo - ~ O jz
00Coo0
CO
0JX.c0i—o
0c00_00 c 01
0 0 ■+—> c o o
3_ooo■a0s—5cr0i_
0
0s_300
LL
0C3OS_CD
J *.O0
DO
o0Oi—0CL04—O_0CDC0S_0
CL0JZ
Eo
c000C0
c0E03cr0
■0c00_00c0X
CNI
LO
0C0s—
o
0c:0
X
>oo
0 0
-t—'coos_3_ooo
00v_
300i_
0
0>0JZ-t—> 0 3E0 -t—<C0co0
Eo
O
000
-4—• 0
-4—•oo
c0co0
Eo
O
00coo0CO
_00
0 0 0 *4—•oo4—
0
00 - c 0 zz
CL £
000
CL
COLO
000s_«4—>
CO
>O LUO >
0J Z
Eo
c000
1 1 0
3_oOO
00
0
0JZ0
0 -t—'C0co0Eo
O
>i—CD
E
0E0
' c0
J Zo0E
■4—>c0E -*—> 0 Z3
0<
C0E0300
0
00
CDC
0c3Oi_s_30
0
o0E0s_4—
0
00s_-t—■coo
0
00
0c3Oi_CD
O0CD
O0ol_0004—o_0CDc0
s_0E
c0E-4—» 0 3-o<
LO
0c
0 0
E CD0 c
'c i_0 0 0
JZ — 0o -4—>
o E0 0 3
H - z
>oo
001—300i_
0c0E 0
> ' Ij s ®
— 0
5 * 0 ^
C0Co0Eo
O
00CDC
0c3O
0 3E w
■n 0 CL -F,
00 )c
0E0c0
CDCi__0
0
E3C_0•4—'o0
O0E0L .4—
0J Z
0 0
-4—>cooI—3_ooo
0s_3
00LL0C3Oi_CD
O0
GO
0034—O_0CDC0
>.s_0
E00
Eo
LO
LO
c0
0i_0
C0E0s—300i_
0
0>
0£
CD
0
0>L_000
0C0
CL■4—4c0E0
30
LU
0
00c
1—0
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Incl
usi
ve
Fitn
ess
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
ndar
d -
Stag
e Tw
o0i—CD0CDCI*i_CDEM—0"0
■00jO3OE
■Q0>0s_0)C0
0CO3
0
0Oc0
JZuc00Oc0i _
0M—L _
0
_0JD00O>0C3
>oo
oE3E'cE<
co-O0'4—*c/5
£ J20_Q_0
"0C0Q.Co
4 —»O3
-4—> 0 C
c’0EJZo00
0“0s _o
JD
0CD
"O0
0O0M—1—300
Eo0 0
-•—> c o ol_3_ooo"00'5cr0i _
0
0>0JZ
0 =JZ 0
0 -4—<
c0coQ.EoO
0
00
■oc3O1—CD
o0CO
C ?.2 5
CDLO
_00c0
CL
00JD0
>oo
0
0
0
00LL~o
_ c0 3
OCD
O 0 CO
co■0C CD
0 cE•Z CD. 0 - c/3
c0coQ_EoO
_00JD_0
JO0C0Q.Coo3-4—> 0 Cc'0EcoTD003
><0
0i _0
-t—> 0E0
JZ4—*
Eo00s_
•4—>cool_3_ooo■00s_
3cr0
10
>OO
c0coQ.EoO
_00JD_0
JO0C0CL
co-00
00>00i _0
-t—> 0E0
I §-4—' i _O M- 3
0CC0E>c0co■00030OJ=Q.05
0 0 -4—>Coo1—3_ooo•00l _
3CT0i _
0JZ-4—>
0>0
0
00LL■0C3OCD
JXLO0
DO
0O
Cl0
Jz CD
00
LO
a>V)D
(/)co*-*o3s-
0)c<6
JD0)
•0■0■0
CDCl
OO
CD
0)
CD
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Inc
lus
ive
F
itn
es
s
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
en
t S
tan
da
rd
- S
tag
e
Tw
o
LU O > Q
c0EQ_Z3C0o
■OCDi_Z3coCD 0 E
■O 0-9
OQ) O Q . 00 CD
° ^ c 0 c oCLE o o
0)c
-4—» _00s_
_00
-Q0
CM
CD
0
O
EEoo
c
■00o0
■0 c00 c o -*—» o 0 v_-4—4 0 c
(f)Q.0JD-4—> 0 0E0 -4—<c0coCLEoo
0CL0L_0 -I—>o 0 1—
-4—< 001—0
0
0CoCL
000_oo0
0JD
0
c0c
0c
4— O _ ]00
CL -4-4E JZ
CL 0 0 )CO O CO
00O0
S I
0JD-4—400E
_00
JD0 C
.2o .tz~oc00Co
-4—•O0+-«0C
0~-4-4
E1—0CL0L_0-4—4o0L.-4—4000
0OCL00
'os_0X00
C0
0000
0)0
COCD
LU>
C0>0i_Q.O
0)0Oc0>*>00
JZ0
JD-4—400E0"0c0CLCo
-4—4o01—■4—40c
0
00)C
0 E 0 0 00 0
.Co 0 0_00 -4—40■00)
s- Cco
■o §s *
^00 0 E 0
0)0O
oJZ0
■TCD
LU>
0c
4—01—00)Icoc
0E0co■00-4—4cCL0
JD-4—400E0Co -*—* o 0 i_
0c
LOCD
LU>
0
o0-4—4c0E_00
-4—4X0-4—4
■0oJD■0C000)C
00JCc0E
■00000JD
*0JZ00 -4—*Co
000c0
CO
0)c
-I—*00E
■00-4—*0i_OCLi_ooc0JD>co0JZ00-4—4co
0CO
0"0c0Cl
co*
o01—-4—40c
0O
JZCL0i_0)-Xo£-4—4L_0o0)_o■0c00)c
c01—JD0t—oo00JZo000-4—4c0E0
_ 0
0
CO-4—4co
CDCD
OQ
■0000_0-+—»(/)
I °ECM 0
0)0JZ
E0E’cE00
JD
"0JZ0-4—4X0-4—4"00■4—4Ci_CL
"00-4—4O00
Co0)cTDC0CL0■00N0
OCL
CM
0Oi_
O
000Os_0£O
0NCO
Is-CD
LU>
0JZ0■0c0■0000E'0■0c0
0
o0)o■0c00)c■0c0I—JD
0i—oo
CL0OX0000)0E
0-4—4c0E_00
T3 o 0 - - C -c 0) Q-— 0
o>0JD
0J I0-4—4X0
■0C0o1_0
0o
CL00)
0) ^ E O
= oH— 0
c0Ec0)
X0h-
00CD
CM CM
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Incl
usi
ve
Fitn
ess
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
ndar
d -
Stag
e Tw
o
LU O> o
oC\l
0 O1c Q_03CDIxO£ -4—» I—03O CD O
td c 03CD C
td c05 i_
— _Q0s_Oo
E3E
'c
E03
_Q
TD0C/D00i_Oc
0JD
0TD
0JD
CDC'o0Q .0
0
CDCo0Q.COTDO
CDCD
CL0OX0CDc
'o 0 CL 0
*4—>co
0■Oc0•*—>0
LU O > Q
0>JD
TD0000
0•*—>O0i_0
s zOoCD
OCDO
TDc0
CDc
TDC0
0O.E o0
JD
00
0
0L.0 -4—<o01—0
JZoc00£ «♦—»0
JD
CDC'o0CL00
O
CL0OX0
CDc'o0CL0
0TDC0 -4—> 0
0
OCM
0O
JZQ_0CD
O£ •4—<
0
CDC'o0CLC/D
OO
TDC0 ■4—> 00
LO
OCDO
TD0 "E
E .E
CDC
TDC0
0s_Oo
CL0OX0
00
0 JD
"0 °
0JD
CDC'o0CL0
0
CDC
'o0CLC/D0C
CD
0TD
0
C00
0JD
0O0CL0
0O
JZCL0i_CDIx
0
LU>
OCDO
CDC
TDC0
CL0OX0
TD0013
0JD
0TD
TD00
"0■+->"El0
O
_0>>C/)
x0
CM
CD
0O
CL0!_CD
i_O£ -4—»
0
LU>
c0
TD£Z0
i—0•4—100
O JZ 0
-t—' 0 3E0
CL0i_CD
TD0O
'CL0
TD
0i_0003
CO-4—> 0 oCL00
'os—0X0
TDC0
o
CL0
0E0i_CD0
CD O
CO
CD
LU>
0
t3"
CD
00
C0coCLEooo
L—‘o0CL00o
c0coCLEoo0
TDc00co
-4—>o3
.2 go0
■50
>Oi_Cl
O -*—»TD003
0
C00
0JD
TD0Co
c0coCL
Eoo
- 00 ■—
— 0£ 0 > C l
0JD-4—> 0
0 C0 _
E
CDC
oCL
CO CO
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Incl
usi
ve
Fitn
ess
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
ndar
d -
Stag
e Tw
o
LU>
t d0T D
>O
0jQ"co3E04-4C0E0s_
3cr0cr0>oJDCD0
C DC
-4—'o0
>4—01—
003
0Co
-4—'O3
-*—*0C
0 4—<
c0E3Oo
T D
E0 O '
1QO0CD
0-4—*0E
ocos _
o_ 0
0_ 0
000OO0c0
0>U 0 0£ E 0 z— o< L L
LD
CD
0E
T DI—o
E £
LU>
Q .0OX0
0 4—>c0E0’5cr 0 o:
T D00 .E.*2 0■ ° c
5 ®^ ET D 130 O1 O -C
0JDCl) 0 > 3° FJD c 0 ^ m O )1 •- 4-4 O
S.~ wO i _ 0 00s_
_ 0
03C0ECDC
’c
0T DC00o4—>
o0
T DOO
CD
o01—0J ZOoCD
T DC0C DC‘o0Q .
C/5T D
L _
o
CD)
CD
Eo(£QOC D
0
0E
o"cos_4-4o00
_ 0
_ Q
000Oo0c0c
0! _
o4-4o3! _4-40c
o0h-CD
CD
_ 0
03C0
0E
T DL -
o
o0oo
0)_Q>
O(/)coo
L L
CD
T D
Q.cr
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Y ~
0) h-> 0+■* U)(0 (0IH +-»
COc 1CO ■U(0 L.0 0c "D
CLL 0
0 CO> +-*■ MBCO C3 0
EO Q.C“ =3
TJLU
C0Ea'5crLU
D)C0
COI
CM
COOl
coo3■oo
0
c0EQ.3cr0
CDc0I—
-t—I0"0o -»—>0JD0o
c0EQ.
0JC-4—»
M—oCM
0Q_
0 -*—*c0E0i_3cr0QC*00c0CD
0CL
0ClCL0000
0 •4—>c0E0i _
3cr0DC00L-O0CL0O£
0CD0
-4-*(/)I
0TJC0
c0E0i—5cr0
cmCDcTDcoCL00i—i_oo0
0>o0Oc0TD0O0
0CL
CO o
o0CL03 .J2cr jz
LU
O0
-I—■
c0E0i—
3cr0
cm
c0E0i_
3cr0
cm"01—0c0CD
0CL
co
-4—>oc3E 1oo
T30"o.CL00
J D
0>.0
0 *—> 0 3E
CM
0CLi—0>0£01
N-LOCD
LUCOCO4—o0
■4—> 1—0CL
c0>_00i _
0
CLE o o
-*—» o c00oTD
-4—•0
C0EQ.
' 3cr000'o1—0X0c0TD0
i _Oo 0 -«—» o c
0oc0Q.Eoo>.
0>
TD0"o.CL300JD03E0oc0
TD">0>0C0E3oo0
c0EQ.
*3crLUCDc
0 c 0 CL
c0ECL'5 Hcr >,m 0
t I 0
0
LO 10
0CO Ed
ition
2 Ma
y 20
06
Incl
usiv
e Fi
tnes
s In
itia
tiv
e
Eq
uip
men
t S
tand
ard
- St
age
Two
t -
aD+-»a>c/)■oc(0w0)<Doo<
CM
O oijla> «-s •
re■Dcre(O
Q>
C70a
0 = jz co
co-t—>c0EQ.3cr0
_0JDco
-i—< 0 3
<
CN
00CDCCO1 _
0JZ
I §0OCL
CO00>"coc1—
0"coo
_0JDCO■*->03■o'CO
0;o>o1—
Q .
0CDCCOL_
TD0000 1— -4—> 0
ICoc
CO
c
o
CDc0
JD
0
< .a
0>"coc1—0
-4—1
<
COo-4—1
COEo3CO
"coJZ0L_o00oi—0X0
CDc0
JDM—O
_0JDCOQ .COO
0JD
CO-4—»cn
c0ED .ZDcr000
TD_3Oc0
S 0CDC‘oc0EEoo0V—0M—0
JD-4—> 0 0
10CL
Co
-4—»
oE
0CDCCOi_
TDCCO
0N00s_003
0
03
CO
0co
-4—> 0 o CL
TD0>OE
~0i —
c00JD0CO
CO0000i_0
JZ<:0-4—»
CO00_0JDCO0>oE'0
0
jiTEi—0£_o0
0
oc
-4—> 0 3E
-4—1c0EQ-3cr000'oi—0X0>>
TDO
JDi _0Q .Q.
D
0-4—» 0 -4—>
C/)10
CN
CN
Co0 o
3 Q"o- rCl) (DS— -4—"0
0 -4—>
CO
Q.0i _
CLClCO
TDCCO
TD 0 0 0 0 -4—< 0
1CocCO
0>0JZoCO
c0EQ_3cr
LU
LU>
oQ
I -O oc0 E 0i _
3cr 0
QC
"co0 c 0
CD
TD0TD_3OX001—CO0L.0C
JDCO
CO-XTDCCO0
_0TDCCO
COCL>4-oCOM-
0 CD CO
-4—<
■= coCO
_0JDCO
JZoCO
-4—* 0 TD
CD
000o000Oo<
TDCCOX0cO
CO
CN
3 cr 0
QC*4—»
C 0 E0 3■o’CO
TD C CO
JZ
0§ t0 0
C0E
-4—<03
<
COTDCCO
-4—*CD-4—<c0EQ .3cr
LU
3CL
-4—»re_0JDCOO
CD0EEoo
N"
0>oJDCO
TD0i _
O-4—<00
JD
3OO0
_0TDCCO
JZ
00
c0EQ-’3crLU
0_0TDCCO
XJZ0)X
T—CN
CO00TD’>Oi_Q.
-4—>
CO
Eo
coo
0>TD0
i _
30CO0E
EEoo
'T f
OCOM—0CDCOi _o
-4—» (/)
E0'creJZo0Ere
TD0CLQ_’3cr00
JD
"reJZ0-4—<c0EQ.'3cr0
O)‘0
TDc3Oi _
CD0
f— 4—<
3 O
.1 ®re cE coCO ^- 0
0co0oCL
CO0
TD0X
oCL
CD
00
0
CD CD
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Incl
usi
ve
Fitn
ess
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
ndar
d -
Stag
e Tw
o
ooCD
JD0to>>0"5Q.
■o0XCD
©EEoo
©JD
TD0o■4—4to0JD
3ooto_0■0c0-C00
c0EQ.3cr
LU
t -
to_0■DC0X
£o
LO
CN
0-4—1~o0X
4—000>oS—Q.-4—10
o HEo04—0CO01—o-4—<0
Eto'c0-Co0E0
TJ0CLQ.’3cr00JD
00
JDcr
0-C-4—1Eo
0o0>■001—3000EEEooXT
0)0
0Co
0oQ_
"0C3Oi—CO
0
I °_J ^
E 0C TJE §0 ■*=
*4—»£ 4 -_ o
-*—> coCL
Q.i—CO
OQ
0 -4—'0O» I 0 ■-3 ©Q. __0JD 00 3
0CO00 Co-4—>0 O CL-4—4JD 0)0
000
JD0-4—403
000
JD
JDO
C0EQ.3cr
LU
00>0
JD-4—403EEEoo
0
00Oi_0X00
JD 0 m- — O
Co-4—» 0CLEoo00■00
O
EE o o4—
— o0 cr c 0I—0
JD-4—40 T30 -4—43 O-4—4c 0 EQ. 3cr 0
0co
0oCl
0
EEoo
EEooCO0COc0i—0
c0ECL
0JD-4—403E_0"5CL
0
TD0 -4—»0OO0
JD
03E
00
0)0JD
0CO0s—o-4—40
3 ■0c r 0
LU-4—40
___ 3LL ■o'
00
JD CO-4—4 c4—o ’0
JDT“ c-4—4 00 JD
CL £4—o 0 )
C00
04—0
o-4—40s—
4—CO -4—4
cXT 0>0
0 i_-4—4 CLc0 -4—4
0E 301— E
3 0c r E0 0
X ’c0 0
JD JDO O
-4—» £ 000
1 - Ep 0 > >L . CO 0-4—' 0 —0 -4—» 33 C/3 CLE 1 0
" 0JD
■00
JD0
0 ■0 00 c 3
0-4—4JD TDh - C/3 <
_0JD0-4—403
tT<
CO
Csj
0>%0"5CL
0CO0i—o-4—4cn
_0 1 cc JD 1 O
0 0 -4—4L-> -4—403
0-4—40
0 !—0
0 ■0 "5 CLCL < Q_ O
\-CL
C\l Editio
n 2
May
2006
Inc
lus
ive
F
itn
es
s
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
en
t S
tan
da
rd
- S
tag
e
Tw
o
t -
(/)Q)
SZocCDCD■OcCO(/)«*-»CO0CO
CNCN
■DO
O t -s •
toT3CCO*-*
CO
CD
O’ O 0> zO'
LU>
>>JCT30CM—0T3
0
0CL
■4—>c0E0>oE0
c0EQ.Oc r000Oi—0X0
too
JOi_0Q.CLD
— 00 r -
0-4—'00E
'4—' 0
JC
— o— 0-4—■c
0 E 0i_13 O ' 0 q:0
00000>0
0OE
>4—>c0EQ.13cr00oc0■4—'000L."O0X
03
0
c0EQ.Dc r0
O0c0E0
Dcr001"0
0c0
O
0Q_
0-4—' 0 0 COCN
coo0CO
0c0E0
oc r0
DZ
c0
EQ_Dcr
LU
0
0 000E0
oc0JC0L.oo
0030 -f—>COI
TOi_0
T3C0 -*—»CO■4—>c0EQ_13c r
LU
c0EQ.’3cr
LU
03
0
00
CO-4—> 1—0CL
0 S 0 I-O 0 C 03 0 0 m COCN
CO
co
I■0s—0
“OC0o
0CO CO
_0-Q00>O
0DC
00
JZoc0
CD~0 «4—»
00CO
CN
CN
0JZ-4—»
£O
"0-4—> 0 0E-000>o1—CL0
OC0
JC
0
o
c0EQ_0c r0
00oi_0X0>>0oJC1_0ClCL0
0
0 C3 JZJO0 0
JZ£1—0
0CL
00>oE
' q)1—
0JC
oc0
JC
0-4—»_0JC00>-4-JC0
’OM—M—O00
JC-4—>0OE-4—»c0ECLOc r00JZ«4—»M—0i_0T3C0E0i_ 00 0JZ Z3
0T3 4—0 0> 0O -E 0
~0 E0
0 cJZ -4—>0 Ec0 0
JC Cl
_0JC00>o
0DC
00
JZoc0
CO
CNCN
CN
OQ
0i_0c r0
oc0
jd
0
c0E0>oE000>o
0JZoc0
JC000
c0
JZ
00_0
0JZ03
0 £ -*—* C 0 E 003C01—i_0
JZoc0
JC0
00_0cZ3
0>oE
c0
E003C0J—s—0
JZoc0
JC0
003
.XLO
c0E £> 5?o CD
CO
c\iCN
00 00
Editio
n 2
May
2006
O5
0 1—> 04-» O )CO CO■“
COc1
CO "DCO L_CD COc ■0■4-» c
LL CO
0) CO>
CO c3 0
EO Q.C ■ ■■■
3O "
LU
oQ
t -
oc0
CD
"sf-CNJ
csi
Eo</)
0ECD0s_
0
CDC
"O0>oE"00 ■—
0O
0>~o0L .0000EEE
LO
j zoc0
_Q
0
0Ocou0T3>oCL0szoc0
-Q
00i_
0
co
^ COoQ .
0 0Oi_0 X 00
4—0 0■o c 0
_0JD0
4 —> 00
-t—•
Q . O
" 0 0
0 )00
0>O
JD00Coo13s—
0JDO
"0O0>>
00
0JD
0OC01—
00O
000
0sz_o
00JZ
0£_o"0o4—»
■Oco
CD0
LU H> CL0
JD
■00C4—0-00
0CL-t—'C0E0>oE00
' os_
0X00
0
"0C0■00T3>O
0JZOc0
JD
00l_
0
oc0CD
LO
csic\i
oc
01—
04—'0
00JZoc0
JD
0JD00>OE~0
c0ECl0 —0cr00oc0 -*—> 0’00■00X
0)0
c0
0cr0
oc0
JD4—»O0i_i_oo0
000c0
0Oc0s_04—0i—
"000>00>0
00E
-t—1c0EQ.00"00
C0EcCD
00'os_
0X0>0ECL0
JZ
CDcEo4—i_
0Clc0
0000
Co•+—>0oCL-oc0
-t- co ® - E"D C0 CD X ~4 — 0
LU>
LU>
0
0
0 001o0CD
coCsjcsi
00E
■4—>c0ECl0 “
JD 0£ o- 00
4 —•
C0E 0 > oECD "0 C 0^ eg 0 1*“ 0 Cl
0oc0 4—'000
T3C0CDC000
CDC'5cr0
c0EQ.0cr000'os_
0X0
CD 0
4 —<
C0EQ_
0cr0
oc0
JD4—» 0 0 0
0 0
>4JD
T30C4—0"O0
0CL4—>
C0E0>oE
00s_
o0JD
"0O)0
C00>0
C0E0>oE0
00
04—>c0E0>oECDC"5CL
T 30 4—»000CDCDcr0
c0EQ.Ocr000‘o0X0
0co4—»
■0TD<
N-Csicsi
00>0
0DE
4—>c0EQ__ 0 Z3 JZcr 00oc0 4-41000i_
T 30X
CD 0 4—'
C0ECL
CDC0
JD04—*0
•0oJZ4-40E1—0
0
5 0cr 00
>4JD■00C4—0■00
0CL
C '0 4 —> 00s_
00CJC
T 30CL
4 —> 0 0 JD O
OCLCL0C/D
0 3 0 3
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Incl
usi
ve
Fitn
ess
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
ndar
d -
Stag
e Tw
o
</)0)T3Ccu
XCOcsi
O o■*=4-> ^0 V-s •
CO~ocre
CO
0
C70
LU> h-
CL
O
76o-t—<
TD0T3>O
0JD■*—>03E0
_0tdcre
JZ
76s_04-4
_ro
c13
03C0os_0X0c0
003
0
>>_QTD0C
M—0"O0
re o .
-»—> c 0 E 0 > OE00'o0X00
01—0
co
4-40oQ.
0
JDre4—‘0
0JZ4-4o>>cre
td00!5re0oc0
0013
0 JZ -*—»
0s_0
C0EQ.*3cr0>>
_0
"5CLTDcre
_0JDreo
O)0
JDre•*—>00i_0
0C
E04—>0
TD
CD
0
0>0 «-0 00 0>- 3
0CreQ_4—'c0ECl
re
oreJDTD00
Co
TD 0 0 reJDTD 0
1 |LU ^ LLJ 00i—re0
_0TDCre
>, 0zz 0
5 cis 5CO I
COCN
oQ
EEoLO
CDC0E3EcEre0>rerejz00
TD0s—3cr0s_
01—re0
_0TDCrejz
JDre -*—> 00s_0
0 3c0
CNCOc\i
oo
JZ0 30re
-4—»re>0re
_Q)-t—'re_0JD_ro
re>re0
JD
76jz00
TD0i_3cr0L.
0re0
_0TDCre
JDre4—100i_0JZ
0 ~ JZ
Eo
TD0s_30re0E0i—003
0 3C
TDCre■4—' 0 1— o
*4—
EEoLOCN
TDCre0!_00Z3
TD04—>re00
EEooh -
C're
00 E
£ 0JZ
0 -4—»JZ-4—» 0 EO JZ oi_0 4-4 M—0 03 _076 C JDo i_ ---
0 0TD > 0C o
o0OO
o 0 rere
JD TDf— >TD L—
re 760 s z re0 0M— 01— 3 00 O JD0 3ID C 760 -i—> jz0 C 00 o
oC 03 0 JZ
TD 03 «4—*
C c TD13 0 0o TD
03 < >O
0 i—JZ 0 _0 Cl4—> > JD 0o o reJD 4-4 reQ_ re Cl ,—_
0 0i_ T— o03CO o _Q3
_0 re TDTD
csi 0 C 0c -*—» — re ■--- -re
JZc0r-
003
JZ>>
co
E C 4-4 -t—<0
JZ4—>0i_ re 0
oM_ 3 c re Clo
Eo4-4
c r0
DC0
o0c0
4-41 00L—0
00
'o4-4 0 E JZ 0o
JD 0 TD §X0
co
-I—< 0 o
CL
0 3
0X
COCOCN
OQ
000oo<
COCsj
CN
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Incl
usi
ve
Fitn
ess
Init
iati
ve
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
ndar
d -
Stag
e Tw
o
c -
(/)Ew'c<s-Co<D
ca>E+-»C/)3
<
csi
Q.
-Q Q.
03
03 ^C -D
CM
(/)COk_+-»coO
3OOoidCN
4-0 o■D "3re0 oJZ4-1(1) L0>
4— 0o c JZ-4—»4—>003 •O0 4—ou4—> -4—»_re 0-4—*coOi_o<;1- 0
Z3Q.4—> 0C0E00 0 4-4 L__o 03 0 0 '5o 03 v—' re cr
O -4—»CO 00 4-4c 001■s — oLO 1TJ -Oc03
o13
"re0c 03 JZ o co4—>o
"Oc03 _0sz "oo 0CD0CO
4—>CO 030 0JZ 14—o0 4—1
4—>c0E>oE0
4-40>03
4-4l_03Q_■D c Q. i_ JZre■ocre4-4
0E0t_3
'ocrLUiZ
CDCJZo03
o■O0L—
4—o0E0CO cr — 4—> 4—« '5 ’c0 0 03 cr re01 JZ i_ 0 JZ o
0 -4—» o L_ o 5M—4—4-4 0 1-jz4—• o 0 o 04—> 0 E -4—* O)0 4-r~ 0 0 C 030E 0E C03l_03 0E
-4—»CO4—< 0 3 0i_3
JZo0Id>o
4-40D1"O
E O" E -Q ■o’ 030 03 < ~oc0E01"re
0JZ4—<o N-"3-id
c03-4—*COQ. 0 u_ CM T_ -4—'ZJ c o 4-4 4-4 Ccr 0 0L_0
c c 00r—CD 0E 0E EQ.-±— 1 c 0 0CD s_sz ■— •— O"C0 4—» i— 03i_ ocr Ocr LUi—-4—» 03 03 0 0CO Q_ * 01 01 LL
0_o 4—>
-4—»C0 E00 E Ci—
Colou
r 03i_4—>coO
4—< 0 o■o’<
reJZo0
cr o CMre01 z LOCM
idCM
CM ™
Editio
n 2
May
2006
a) 1-> CD4-* G)(0 CO4-*
(0c 1CO"DCO V.a> COc "O4-» cLL CO4-*0) CO> 4-»CO c3 0
Eo ac
3O "
LU
t -
Q)(/)
D
coco
-4-»o3J-
+•»0)
_ c
CDcvi
T3
Q.
cr
T3
CD
Q .CD
Q .
CL
CDCsj
OCO
+-*cn
JCD )
Q>
§1 ^
cvi
O o■=a> »-s •
CO■OcCO4-<CO
o0
0 -*—<CO
1 --t—'3=CD0§
C7a)a:
LU>
</)
0CD
d )ajTJ00=3
0JD-t—> 0 3EE0
10>>0CDCi _0
JDE3CJ*Co0 -•—> 0
D)0£0Co>c
O
0 -*—< C 0E0oc
CDc1—0
JDE3
E0
-t—>0CO
c\i
oa0 0
j =0 ■*"'> ^0 °
~oc0
0JD
0-C00s_0
_0
O0I -
OJ
csi
co -»—> 0 o
0CoL_oEoo
0 = — 00o "D
■Dc0
Cl0i_CDOcoo
0i—0
JDE3C
JscCO00
O)0
3JD
0~Coo
ooC\l
CD0
"D00"0
E3E
’c
E
00
JDE3
^ SICNJ S 3
CDOOCsj>%0
Csjco
-I—>T3LU
V
Q) h-> 0+-» O(0 0■“ +-»
COc1
(0 ~o(0 S-.
0 0c “D+-» cLL 0+-*0 CO> +-»
■ ■■■(/) c3 0
EO aC3cr
LU
■o00cr0
Oc0CDCs_
04 - 4■+->00 4—1O0
0
0CD-X
CD0Co0cEoc0-O
030£
SZCl0v_CDOcoo
0s_
0 4 —>
0
LU>
000C00l _
0_0o0c
"O0>_0Q .0
0JD
03E0i_0
-DE0Co00
030<i0
0"C 0-4—»
CO-4—»
co
CO
c\i
0JDE13
oQ0
>cO
EELO0
JD
0JZ00i _
0JDEZ3C
o04—40
000o
o
_0
"0E00
JD
>.0
0 E0
JZ-4—«
0 0 -o _0o
O) £ 0 a- 50JZ
03’0JZE0E’cE0
00
Q .
030£0
000C
-Xo
0)’0
EEo
c0
00_0
oc0
JD-4—> 0 Z3E
0
0N
CO
■sf1-CN
0H—O 0L_ c0 0 0
JD JDE 0 E0 O 0
z CL z
LU>
0
0 0 -4—»
JJO0>4—110
0)0£0
Co
TD0
-4—»
0O_o0JD4—400E0i _
0JDE0co0
■4—40
0)0
0■0i_
00CD
0 --0)0
LO
1csi
OQ
030£
4—>c0>
_001—0
Eo
H—
EEoo
c0
0JD-4—»
Oc"0JZ00i _0
JDE0c
o0 -4—>0
030
0JZ
■000s_0
4—4JZ -4—'
JD 030 E 0 c
0c £ 04—4i_ 0 00 ■0 JZ 00 4—4 _o
E 0 4—’0 0i_ O
0c0
or 0JZ4—4
4—4c0
|00
4—40_0
£ E E 0 000
i_0
0*4—>
Q.00 "
E00
4—4JZ03
■00
00
0
00JZ4—4
'0
0 0 JZ4—4 c 0
0L. 0 c 0 JZ-4—'
0
4—4003
01—
■00
"O_0 4—4 0
00
_0
>0C i
00_o<iO
C O '0 4—43 4—4 i— 0 C
ci_0
O4—4
JD4—4 'O
Q_0 0 c 0
4-4 0 0 0 TD0 0 Q . E C0 f - 0
JZ
000
4—4
<i
CO i_
04—4 4—4 JD4—O
_o O0 TD E
"0 — 0 00 0 c■0 O 0 0O -4—* 4—4JZ "Q JZ 0 04—> 0E
0- 0’>
030£
£Oj_
04—404—4
O04—4
i_ JZO U-
Q .0 03
0 0 0
hole 0
> *JZ
i_Q .Ot_ O
00JZ
Q . Q . 4—4c 0 Q . 0 00 i_ 0 0
4—> 03 0 0O O i_0 C JZ 0 O00
O -4—» JZ 0O O4—4 g 4—40
CDC1—0JDE0
CO
c\j
-4—»
EXo
LU O> Q
0£oI —i—
<
h-iCsj
0i_
04—0
00 4 —>o0
o
030£0JZ
£ >
-4—>o0
c03
"0 4—> 0 0E
00 CN CN S0
COOOCN>>0
CNCo4—4
TDLU
Incl
usiv
e Fi
tnes
s In
itia
tive
E
qu
ipm
ent
Sta
ndar
d -
Stag
e Tw
o
LLI O I - Q
CD CT
* I 1 S.0i_0
JO
Ec_0 -4—»OCD
OcC/30O
TO
0O0Q .00
CZ 0
* I_0 -4—»
0 C-Q O0 m-
0-Q4 —>
03E0E00>0
00h-’Csj
000C00i_0_0O0c
g> E '0 E
>4—
0 n
E ^3 Z3
E 2cE •-0E000
0s_0
JO
E3C
t o0
0 3
0JC
E3E'cE
0 -4—»JZ0 3
0
0X
■o0T3
3OE
-- o
TO0>0i_0 3C0
0oc0i_0
4 —s_0 4—>c
0 JO 3 00
JO
>>0E0L. ---CD
* 2 0
0
_0L_o>>
JCCl0S_0 3Ocoo
0JZ
0i—0
0• 3 0
0C0
CL4—>
c0EQ .
-3cr
LU
E0
_0JO0Q .0oo0
0 3
-Xo0JOTO00
003CO
TO000JO
0 3c
"0JO0
0 _00 3 o
.E 00
JO
E3c
o0i_0 4—> 4—>0
CL0L_0 3Ocoo
_0JO0300C
Es_0
-4—»0TO
0 3
0
LU>
3JO
0i_0 4—> 4—>_0
~0
0JO
E3c
_0
-4—»o0
04->
34—1 4—> 0
JO 3 0
000
TO003
0JO
Oc4—> 0 3E0 3Ci_0
JO
E3c
J 0
0
DQ
_0
0
00
0 3
c\i
co4—>
" 0TO0
TO0
TO■00
0JO
0E
h - O CL Q
0 3c ’0JO
0 0
' oI—0 X 0
0 - c £ 0
o
0 -4—'
_0CL
-4—»
OO4—
_0
■Oc0
0 -4—'
0s—CLOi_C lCL0
0 3
0
0 JZ 0 4—>C0EQ .
3c r0
0-4—»JZ0 3
0
5
0-4—*
cn
c\i
TO0
JZo0
’■4—' »4—•0
0Oc
_0
0JO
0 3cCL0
0
0 3C03
"O0s_3000E
"O0E
0CL
TOC0
00£O
0JZ-4—»
0JO
" 0 JZ 0
-4—'JZ0 3
0
0 4—> 0
0JZH
0o
o4—0i_0X0l_003
0JC4—>
0i_0
C0E
JZo0
-4—» -4—'
0i_0
0
C0E0s_Oc
oo
TOc0
JZ
0JO0
4 - 4
03
0
0Co
0JO
"0JZ0
0 «+—'c0E01—3000E
----1 . cTO 00 JZ0i— <i0 4—<
00i_ 4—<0 c
JZ 0CL4—0
JZ_x 4-40 00 JO0 —
0JZ JZ03 00 c£ 0
0 4-4
SZ ' 04—< 0c CL0 _0
4—>JZ TO03 T3
0 c
0 ~0ClO
— TO ~ 0
> 0 0 crc0E0s_3000E
_0JO_0
0>00
Co
4 —>
0 O CL
4 —<
oo
TOc0
JZ0co
c0
0oCL
OE00
c0
-X0
0 4 —>
JC0 3
0
0JZ
TO0
-4—»
_0
3_o0O
0oc0
4 —>0'001_
00 301__0>0
0
TO C 00 C
~ 2 0 cr
TO0
«4—'
0 4 —*0
00
_0C3
0 "0
‘os_0X0
”0s_0 4—>_0
c003
TO0
TOC0
00o
0 oCL
" 0 -4—'
0
0 TO
F 5 c O
0 0 JO JO
c000s_CL0
00
0
C\l £ !
Editio
n 2
May
2006
CD CD CD CD CD CDCDCD CDLO
cn
LOCN
LO
CN
LO
CN
LO
CNO
LO
CD CDCD CDCD CD CD CD CD CDLO
CNOCN
LOLO LO LO LOO
5 © •“
*-» O) <0 (0
Q_
Q.
crQ.•O
Q_
</) "D (/) »-
ClTD
Cl Cl
CDQ.
LL
Q.
c<DEQ.
CD CDCD
CDCLCl
3O"
LU
crQ. Cl
LL CL O '
-QI CL
LO ^ CN —
COOOCN
CD
CNCo
■4—■
T3LU
o
50) •“
> ® +■» O)CO 05
.t: co
£ i
</) "Di f )a> coC "O
c11 f t
<D CO ^ +-*
CO ^
- E c 5
“ D
O' LU
I- O CL Q
0x:I-
030£
E3Ex0E0
-4—»
cu"i_Q.Os_CLCL0C00>0
0 x: 0
-t—•C0EQ_3cr000’o
0X0
> -
c0EQ.
’3cr0
4 —
O0E0
o00*s_
o4—<JZ03i_0
00>L_000
0C0Q.
c0EQ.3CT
LU
0JC030£
E3Ex0E0 -4—'0i_CLOi_CLCL0C
030
h»Csi
HCL
JC*00000Oo003c-0JC4 —
o_0JC0CL0O0JD
"0JZ00c
co-4—*o_000_xo0*0
03'0
c’0E0JC
-4—»
E0i _4—j_
000'0i _
0X04—O4—>c0E00c0EE000
JZ-4—'
O-4—»
O\CL4—•C0ECl
3c r 0
0 C0 OJC 4—>
00 O4—• CLJC0 00 0
0 ' OS _
CL 0CL X0 0
03'0g
Csj
Csj
co4—»o_00
C/3
co4—> 0 o
CL
I-CL
od
LU LU > I—
0030
JC4—>0_0JD 0 C 0 4—> 0
03EcQ.
JZ03'0<i0
*34—
cCL0
CDO■4—>"000c0
3O
£cCL
C□_co-4—» ...
r~. 9 0
® 0 > C/3
CO
csi
LU h-> CL
■o00
0 «♦—•
0JD-t—> 0 3E
04—> -C03'0£0
~o0030
"0O
0EL_03
E’0ocC l
00
0
0
Co
-4—»
0 i_0C l
O0
0 1—0 4—i_0 4—>c4—>o c4—>0 3E"Oc0_xo 00 .E
0 3
'0<;0
JC«4—»
*+— o0s_34—<O3i_ 4—>00
CC L
0
003
0
O0
-4—»
JZ0 3
'0
_0JD_0
0>00-Q4—< 0 3EE0'c0JZo0Eco
-4—*
o_000
O)0
>0-X
0 3CIxoo
Csj
cQ_-+—» J Z0 3
0
ID
c-Icsi
3o0C/3
Osl —
Editio
n 2
May
2006
Appendix J: Feedback questionnaire for
design teams including examples of
completed items
A
Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
' Feedback Questionnaire for Design Team s
Dear Supplier,
Thank you for agreeing to provide feedback on the IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two, Your participation is valued and your input will help to influence future standards development in the field of inclusive design.
The questionnaire to be completed is presented below. Please be as open and honest w ith your answers as possible.
A small number of extracts from completed questionnaires may be quoted w ithin the submitted research thesis. All comments will be used anonymously. Your name, company name or any specific product names mentioned w ill be kept confidential and will not be quoted.
I f you have any questions, concerns or require any fu rther information about the questionnaire, or you do not consent to your feedback being used in the subm itted research thesis, please do not hesitate to contact me - [email protected] or +44(0)114 257 2060.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you fo r your involvement throughout the project and I look forward to working with you again in the future.
Kind regards,
Dawn Hughes
IFI Equipment Research Manager Inclusive Fitness In itiative &ResearcherSheffield Hallam University
tnglifrh > «<!r rr Ut>of Dfeabiifty Sport IOTTFKY FUWOED
The Gary Jclrii
Spurn foundation
§>■l I Sheffield I H a l la m U n ivers ity
J
J1
A
TInclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment
"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
* Feedback Questionnaire for Design Team s
Background Information
The IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two was developed to assist the commercial fitness equipm ent industry to design products tha t better meet the needs of disabled people.
The aim of this questionnaire is to gain feedback from the industry about whether the standard has been an effective means to support designers in adopting inclusive design practices for fitness equipment.
I t is most likely tha t your use of the IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two was as part o f the "IF I Accreditation" process. Please note tha t this questionnaire is currently seeking feedback on the equipment standard only - the fact tha t it exists, whether it offers new design information, and whether it helped you to design products more inclusively?
I f you wish to give feedback on the w ider "IF I Accreditation" process (e.g. the practical assessment process, sending evidence for compliance, issuing o f logos and marketing m aterial, etc) please provide this in a separate email communication.
Respondent Information
(Please Note: collected for monitoring purposes only, will not be released publically)
Name:
Organisation:
Job Title:
J
J2
• o * Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design TeamsTinclusive fitness
Question 1
1. Has the IF I Equipment Standard - Stage Two been useful to you in incorporating inclusive principles into the design of your equipment?
Yes NoPlease explain . . .
Question 2
2. Did you previously have access to the type of inclusive design information contained within the standard?
Yes No
If Yes, please give source . . .
I f No, how long would it take you to develop, and how would you go about obtaining, this kind of inform ation yourself?
J3
• o * Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
»inclusive fitness Feedback Questionnaire for Design Team s
Question 3
3. How did you undertake inclusive design before you had access to this standard?
Question 4
4. Do you intend to use the information contained within the standard in the future?
Yes No
Please explain . . .
J4
Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teamsfinclusive fitness
Question 5
5. Have you had any feedback (positive or negative) on the inclusive features of products designed to the standard?
Yes No
Please give brief details (confidentia lity is assured)
vV.
Further Comments
Any further comments you would like to provide on the standard...?
Please return your completed questionnaire to:
I Ms Dawn HughesIFI Equipment Research [email protected]
y -......... -............ __yThank you for providing feedback on the IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two.
J
J5
Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teams \Inclusive fitness
Background Information
The IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two was developed to assist the commercial fitness equipment industry to design products that better meet the needs of disabled people.
The aim of this questionnaire is to gain feedback from the industry about whether the standard has been an effective means to support designers in adopting inclusive design practices for fitness equipment.
It is most likely that your use of the IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two was as part of the "IFI Accreditation" process. Please note that this questionnaire is currently seeking feedback on the equipment standard only - the fact that it exists, whether it offers new design information, and whether it helped you to design products more inclusively?
If you wish to give feedback on the wider "IFI Accreditation" process (e.g. the practical assessment process, sending evidence for compliance, issuing of logos and marketing material, etc) please provide this in a separate email communication.
Respondent Information
I
(Please Note: collected for monitoring purposes only, will not be released publically)
c r r Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
lnclus,vtf„„M5 Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teams
j Question 1
l I\ 1. Has the IF I Equipment Standard - Stage Two been useful to you in
incorporating inclusive principles into the design of your equipment?
^ V e s NoPlease explain . . . }i
C ,c^-a ■ ^ 2 '/A ^ /? f ly i Lh*o7L s d ///ty /z >
7 ^ > /o £ ? } € 4 C /9 *> ^ o lt * ’D ls j& A s Z fg ^
IQuestion 2
2. Did you previously have access to the type of inclusive design information contained within the standard?
Yes No
If Yes, please give source . . .
I f No, how long would it take you to develop, and how would you go about obtaining, this kind of information yourself?
m
Ir.F' h *>*•
• 1:
WY;-kK
Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment "IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teams
Question 3
3. How did you undertake inclusive design before you had access to this standard?
^ ^ ■ ■ 1 ^ f a
jQuestion 4
\ 4. Do you intend to use the information contained within the standard jj in the future?
fa^ es No
- u
:'r-f
V
Please explain . . .
'tU - S f f a~ fa -
- jy y z y p n p jy / f c
t^suo /J '/S y y fa ,$ 0 r~ /'/f
■ ftU . s i ^ e > o - f a
J
• VS; ,- . - •
J8
Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment
f "IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teams
Question 5 i
5. Have you had any feedback (positive or negative) on the inclusive features of products designed to the standard?
Yes No I
Please give brief details (confidentiality is assured) . . .
! £ fs iS ,/)» .S y Y r r
V _ _____ __
Further Comments j
Any further comments you would like to provide on the standard...? j
f f / M g z . v y y / 'A w n j
A / s / 1 ^ 9 - a iy , / ? &
/0 T r r f 'n y ,
I
VThank you for providing feedback on the i n Equipment Standard - Stage Two.
Please return your completed questionnaire to:
Ms Dawn HughesIFI Equipment Research Managerda wn@inclusivefitness. org
J
J9
• o * Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment
T "IF I Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teamsinclusive fitness
Background Information
The IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two was developed to assist the commercial fitness equipm ent industry to design products tha t better meet the needs of disabled people.
The aim of this questionnaire is to gain feedback from the industry about whether the standard has been an effective means to support designers in adopting inclusive design practices fo r fitness equipment.
I t is most likely tha t your use of the IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two was as part o f the "IF I Accreditation" process. Please note tha t this questionnaire is currently seeking feedback on the equipm ent standard only - the fact tha t it exists, whether it offers new design information, and whether it helped you to design products more inclusively?
I f you wish to give feedback on the w ider "IF I Accreditation" process (e.g. the practical assessment process, sending evidence for compliance, issuing of logos and marketing material, etc) please provide this in a separate email communication.
Respondent Information
(Please Note: collected for monitoring purposes only, will not be released publically)
Name:
Organisation:
Job Title: UK Service Manager
J10
• w * Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teams»inclusive fitness
Question 1
1. Has the IF I Equipment Standard - Stage Two been useful to you in incorporating inclusive principles into the design of your equipment?
^ Yes NoPlease explain . . .
I am th e ^^^^U K IFI representative, not directly part of the^Bdesign team. However I am responsible for either ensuring^^TOducts are designed in the^Bto meet the neeas of the IFI, or to modify machines locally within the UK to meet IFI requirements.The Stage 2 standards have allowed me to identify in detail the needs of the IFI standards. The more detailed the standard the less room for interpretation.Where the products have had to be modified locally in the UK (albeit as a short term measure) the document has been (and continues to be) very useful as a working document to carry o u ^ ^ changes.By having the standard in advance it enables the design teams in th ^ H to build the requirements into their requirement specs., allowing them to appreciate the IFI needs and build this in as a philosophy rather than a burden.
Question 2
2. Did you previously have access to the type of inclusive design information contained within the standard?
✓ Yes No
If Yes, please give source . . .
The only previous experience of IFI requirements was the Stage 1 standards, other than this, then no previous information was available.
I f No, how long would it take you to develop, and how would you go about obtaining, this kind of information yourself?
Without the information supplied as part of the IFI process, the resources within the UK office would seriously inhibit such a standard or anything approaching it from being developed.Initially, it would likely be to employ consultancy resource to carry out this project, no doubt as an expensive exercise.
J11
• o * Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Teamsrinclusive fitness
Question 3
3. How did you undertake inclusive design before you had access to this standard?
Other than Stage 1 information, no Inclusive design was undertaken.
Question 4
4. Do you intend to use the information contained within the standard in the future?
✓ Yes No
Please explain . . .
The most important legacy of the standard is to continue to encourage design teams to 'think inclusive' when designing products, not to consider it as an add-on for a special version of the machine, but for the 'standard' machine to become the 'inclusive' machine.
W ith in ^^^H l have noticed over the years of being involved with the IFI standards how less changes are required to the standa^^roduct to meet the IFI needs - this is a positive indication that the 'Inclusive needs' are becoming a 'design need' rather than an afterthought.
J12
Tinclusive fitness
Inclusive Design Standard for Commercial Fitness Equipment"IFI Equipment Standards - Stage Two"
Feedback Questionnaire for Design Team s
Question 5
5. Have you had any feedback (positive or negative) on the inclusive features of products designed to the standard?
t / Yes No
Please give brief details (confidentia lity is assured) . . .
Most of the issues have been internal, where designers, sales people questioned the need for some of the requirements. This was mainly due to not thinking about the disabled population as a whole and all the varied disabilities this encompasses.Once explained, this better understanding was then more widely accepted and the spirit of 'inclusivity' became an asset rather than a hindrance.
Further Comments
Any further comments you would like to provide on the standard...?
Over the 6+years that I have been involved with the IFI, it is clear that where such standards have been developed, the initial view of allowing manufacturers to have a certain amount of freedom so as not to over-influence the aesthetics of each product, this changed to a need, mainly driven by the manufacturers for the standards to be more prescriptive in order for better consistence across all manufacturers products.
Thank you for providing feedback on the IFI Equipment Standard - Stage Two.
Please return your completed questionnaire to:
Ms Dawn HughesIFI Equipment Research [email protected]
J13