InsightsDesign for AllGuide
What is the difference between Design for All, Inclusive Design and Universal Design?
Design for All, Inclusive Design, Universal Design: design approaches compared
Three approaches with the same aim and different traditions: the seven principles of American Universal Design, the British Inclusive Design practice of offering alternatives, and the European Design for All process, which involves people at every stage. What really sets them apart, and why our work starts from Design for All.
· updated 8 min read
Design for All, Inclusive Design and Universal Design share the same aim – designing solutions that can be used by the widest possible number of people – but they come from different traditions and texts and place the emphasis differently. Universal Design, which originated in the United States, is based on seven principles from 1997 that guide the design and evaluate its outcome. Inclusive Design, of British origin, accepts that a single solution cannot include everyone and calls for alternatives. Design for All, defined in Europe by the 2004 Stockholm Declaration, is a process that requires people to be involved at every stage, starts from their needs and aspirations, and also measures the result by the dignity, comfort and well-being of those who use it.
As design and innovation continue to evolve, the need to put inclusion at the centre of design becomes ever clearer. Inclusion is a word with many meanings and applications; in design, it stands for the ambition of living in a society where every individual, regardless of ability, disability, age, gender or cultural background, has access to the same services, products and opportunities. The importance of putting inclusion at the heart of the design process is made even clearer by population ageing: greater longevity is a sign of progress, but it poses new challenges for a population in which at least five generations live side by side. This makes inclusion an ethical, technical and practical imperative for design.
Three approaches, one common aim
In this context, three approaches have emerged from decades of reflection on design: Design for All, Inclusive Design and Universal Design. Each tackles the subject from a different angle, with a common goal: to improve people’s lives, their independence and, more generally, their well-being and comfort through design.
Each, however, has distinctive features in terms of process, strategies and benefits. All three promote a culture of acceptance, respect and consideration, leading to greater social cohesion, fewer inequalities and more active participation by all members of the community.
In brief: the differences in a table
| Design for All | Inclusive Design | Universal Design | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | Europe (EIDD – Design for All Europe) | United Kingdom | United States |
| Key text | Stockholm Declaration, 2004; Gaia Declaration, 2024 | The principles of inclusive design, Design Council/CABE, 2006 | Seven principles, Center for Universal Design, NC State University, 1997 |
| Nature | Holistic, multidisciplinary design process | A philosophy and a set of principles | Seven principles that guide the design and evaluate its outcome; described as a process since 2012 (Steinfeld and Maisel) |
| Role of people | Involved at every stage, from the very beginning (Co-Design) | Involved at all stages (CABE 2006) | Not explicitly required by the seven 1997 principles; social participation is a goal of the outcome (2012) |
| Stance on exclusion | Rejects solutions that signal a person’s condition: a solution succeeds when people choose it, not when it is imposed on them | States who remains excluded and offers alternatives | “Usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design”; avoid segregating or stigmatising any users (principle 1) |
| Addressed to | Designers, entrepreneurs, administrators, policy makers | Designers and managers of the built environment | Designers and consumers |
| Scope | Built environment, everyday objects, services, culture and information | Built environment (CABE 2006); products and digital in other references | Products and environments (1997); programmes and services in the UN Convention (2006) |
Design for All: the Stockholm Declaration and the participatory process
Since the 2004 Stockholm Declaration (opens in a new tab), Design for All has been defined as design for human diversity, social inclusion and equality. Its main premises are the holistic approach and the creative challenge: the first calls for teams with the skills needed to tackle the design in all its breadth and complexity; the second is the energy that drives the exploration of new ideas to overcome obstacles. The creative and ethical challenge is addressed not only to designers, but also to entrepreneurs, administrators and policy makers, who are asked to treat inclusion as an integral part of their vision. In 2024 EIDD’s Gaia Declaration (opens in a new tab) extended this commitment to the challenges of climate, emergencies and artificial intelligence.
The active, creative involvement of end users, stakeholders and experiencers – the people who experience a product, service or environment, directly or indirectly – is the cornerstone of Design for All, which has made participatory processes central. The people for whom solutions are intended, whether products, services or environments, are involved from the earliest stages, because they bring a unique perspective on their own experience and the difficulties they face. The team turns their needs and preferences into design requirements, and the solutions are then tested with the same people.
Design for All takes time and commitment, and sometimes costs more than a conventional approach; but continuous testing reduces errors, and with them the cost of putting them right. It aims at pleasant, non-discriminatory solutions that do not draw attention to differences or specific needs, such as those of people with disabilities.
Inclusive Design: the Design Council principles
Inclusive Design is the approach closest to Design for All: its goal is equal, safe and independent participation in everyday activities, taking human diversity into account. The principles set out by the Design Council and CABE in 2006 (opens in a new tab) call for placing people at the heart of the design process and involving them at every stage; acknowledging diversity and difference; offering choice where a single design solution cannot accommodate all users; providing for flexibility in use; and providing buildings and environments that are convenient and enjoyable to use. For digital products and services, a complementary reference is the Inclusive Design Principles (opens in a new tab).
Inclusive Design openly acknowledges that a single solution cannot always meet every need, and proposes stating which part of the population might remain excluded, for technical, technological or economic reasons. It calls for alternatives that reflect the diversity of needs: product ranges, complementary solutions, accessories. And it proposes solutions designed to remain flexible over time, because needs change.
Universal Design: the seven principles of 1997
Universal Design is widely used in the United States and Australia and is based on the seven principles (opens in a new tab) formulated in 1997 by the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University: equitable use; flexibility in use; simple and intuitive use; perceptible information; tolerance for error; low physical effort; size and space for approach and use. The principles are used to evaluate existing designs, guide the design process and educate designers. In 2012 Edward Steinfeld and Jordana Maisel supplemented them with eight goals, the 8 Goals of Universal Design (opens in a new tab), including wellness, social integration and cultural appropriateness.
It is also the term adopted by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which defines universal design in Article 2 and specifies that it does not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed. The distinction that matters, then, is not between a solution for everyone and an assistive product, but between an object people can choose and one that signals their condition.
What they have in common
The three approaches share human diversity as their starting point, the rejection of segregation and the idea that a good solution serves more people than those it was designed for. They do not share attention to the environment to the same degree: Design for All makes it explicit with EIDD’s Gaia Declaration (2024), which links inclusion, climate and emergencies; the 1997 Universal Design principles and the 2006 Inclusive Design principles do not mention it.
Which approach to choose for a project
In practice, the three approaches are not mutually exclusive. The seven principles of Universal Design guide the design and check its outcome; Inclusive Design offers an honest criterion when a single solution is not enough and a range is needed; Design for All guides the entire process, because it starts with people and their aspirations, rather than their limitations alone. This is the approach we follow in our consultancy work: involving people at the start of the project, continuous testing, and solutions people love to use, not just ones they can use.
Frequently asked questions
Are Design for All and Universal Design the same thing?
No. Universal Design is based on seven principles that guide the design and evaluate its outcome, but they do not provide for people’s participation in the design. Design for All is a process that involves people at every stage and takes account of their needs, aspirations and dignity. Why the equivalence suggested by Wikipedia is a mistake is explained in the article Design for All and Wikipedia.
What is the difference between Design for All and Inclusive Design?
They are the two closest approaches: both involve people throughout the design. Inclusive Design, in its 2006 British formulation, is mainly concerned with the built environment and asks designers to state whom a solution excludes, offering alternatives. Design for All extends the same commitment to objects, services, culture and information, and addresses it not only to designers but to decision-makers: entrepreneurs, administrators, politicians.
How many principles of Universal Design?
Seven, formulated in 1997 by the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University. In 2012 Steinfeld and Maisel added eight goals, the Goals of Universal Design.
How do they relate to ergonomics?
Ergonomics studies the interactions between people and the other elements of a system. It provides all three approaches with data and with methods of analysis and testing. The relationship is explored in the article On ergonomics.
In our projects
- OpenCo-Design
- DemìCo-Design · Design for All
- GiottoDesign for All
- ShadeDesign for All
- FlightCo-Design · Design for All
- PrimeCo-Design · Design for All
- ShineDesign for All
- FlatDesign for All
- DfA ItaliaCo-Design · Design for All
- Accessible museumsCo-Design · Design for All
- HackabilityCo-Design
- SherlockCo-Design · Design for All
Read next
- News and eventsDesign for All Process: the Florence event of 17 October 2026What did the Design for All Process event in Florence bring together?
- InterviewInclusive design: the Design for All approach on Radio Canale ItaliaWhat is inclusive design, as explained on the radio?
- InterviewFrancesco Rodighiero on Rai Radio 3: Design for All at the heart of the cultural debateWhy is Design for All a cultural issue, not only a technical one?
From theory to design
Products, spaces and services: let’s assess together which approach your project needs and how to involve people from the very beginning.