Unveiling Disability © Penny Bremner 2025

Unveiling Disability: An Exploration of the International Symbol of Access; Its Considerations, Limitations and Possibilities

Research Led Project Penny Louise Bremner BA (Hons) Graphic Design Dissertation Submitted to The School of Design, Edinburgh College of Art The University of Edinburgh Under Supervision of Dr Agnese Sile 25th January 2024 Word Count: 6,236

i

Contents Page

Acknowledgements… ......................................................................................................... iii List of Illustrations… ............................................................................................................ iv Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1: Disability, Space and Access: History and Considerations… ................... 3 Chapter 2: Symbols of Access: Development, Considerations and Limitations……9 Chapter 3: Case Study of the ISA: Considerations and Limitations…..................... 15 Chapter 4: Representing Disability: The Invisible Issue ............................................ 19 Chapter 5: Final Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................. 29 Bibliography….................................................................................................................... 36

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my friends and family for motivating me to take on this research topic and reminding me throughout the process that the finished piece would be a useful resource for other designers and social advocates aiming to generate change in this field.

I’d also like to thank my supervisor Dr Agnese Sile who not only supported this research project but inspired me with her vast knowledge of disability studies and background in graphic design.

iii

List of Illustrations Figure 1. Selwyn Goldsmith, A wheelchair logo launched at the 1965 International Conference on Barriers in Stresa, Italy, 1965, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018…………………………………………………………………………………………9 Figure 2. Timothy Nugent, The No Barriers Logo, 1965, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018..................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3. Canada’s National Research Council, Abstract Insignia for the Building Code in 1965, 1965, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018 ..................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Selwyn Goldsmith and students at the Norwich School of Art, Studies planned for the use of a modular symbol system, 1969, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018.………………………………………………………………………………………13 Figure 5. Selwyn Goldsmith and students at the Norwich School of Art, Inclusive symbol, 1969, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018.………………………………………………………………………………………14

Figure 6. Susanne Koefoed, 1968-9, Original ISA Concept, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability : Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018..................................................................................................................................... 16

iv

Figure 7. ISA, Designed in the 1960’s by Susanne Koefoed, Digital Graphic, The Accessible Icon Project, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://accessibleicon.org/ ................................................................................................ 17

Figure 8. Visability93 Icon Font, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/ ......................................................................... 24

Figure 9. Visability93 symbols visualised on accessible toilets, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/ ......................................................................... 25 Figure 10. Visability93 symbols on access spaces in car park, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/ ......................................................................... 26 Figure 11. Visability93 Symbol, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/ ......................................................................... 27 Figure 12. ‘Not all disabilities are visible’ sign on University of Edinburgh toilets, Edinburgh, Penny Bremner, 15 October 2023……………………………………………………………………….………………32 Figure 13. Inclusive toilet sign, Grace Warnock, 2018-2019, Image of Grace’s Sign, Points of Light Website, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.pointsoflight.gov.uk/graces-sign/ ................................................................ 33

v

Introduction

The International Symbol of Access (ISA) is used to signpost spaces of access for both people with disabilities and society (Ben-Moshe and Powell, 2007). The ISA, first introduced to demonstrate issues of inaccessible spaces, has become an international beacon of disability representation in visual culture and society.

This dissertation unpacks the considerations involved in the development of the ISA and its limitations as a symbol in regard to its changing purpose from a symbol that directed disabled individuals to accessible spaces, to becoming an identity through design choices that sought to humanise the symbol (Guffey, 2018).

This dissertation seeks to explore the ISA’s limits to which it acts as a representation of all disability, and the extent of its inclusivity in this context.

Following this, the dissertation critically discusses the possibilities of the future of the ISA.

Through an exploration of the history of access, the developments that led to the design of the ISA, the ISA itself, and alternative concepts, this dissertation draws conclusions on the social impact of the ISA and its role in becoming a globally recognised representation of disability. This will be done by answering the following questions:

What were the considerations behind the history and development of access symbols?

1

What are the limitations of the ISA, regarding its social impact and inclusiveness?

What possibilities for development are there for the future of the ISA and its relationship with accessible spaces and disability representation, so as to become more inclusive to all disabilities?

To critically analyse the considerations, limitations and possibilities of the ISA, this dissertation uses literature reviews throughout, in combination with autoethnographic analysis and a case study of the ISA and alternative concept, Visability93.

The motivation of this research project is that an understanding of the ISA is important in contextualising contemporary discussions on disability identity, and the impact design has on the disabled community. It is important that designers are aware of the tangible impact design can have on accessibility and inclusivity.

Carrying out this research project has been done with the aim to gather information and understand how the disabled community has been impacted by design up until this point, in order to be able to find solutions through design, and to equip designers with an understanding of the issues surrounding the ISA necessary to address these problems.

2

I acknowledge that other areas of the world approach disability differently to how the Western culture does. This project has been carried out through the lens of Western culture, so conclusions should be applied with this context in mind.

Additionally, I recognise the important work and literature in the field of semiotics.

However, with the scope and length of time I had for this dissertation, I decided to focus on the ISA’s communications in a socio-cultural context. However, if further research were to be continued on this topic, considering semiotics would be beneficial in understanding the intricate communicatory design elements of the symbol.

Chapter 1: Disability, Space and Access: History and Considerations

Conceptually, access relies on the built and social environments and how they progress. It dictates who and where people can exist as can visual communication (Titchkosky, 2011). Access and visual communication have a symbiotic relationship; both dictate social positioning, producing a discriminatory social hierarchy that excludes those not granted equal access to certain social spaces (Guffey, 2018). For disabled people, access is not only about removing physical barriers but also navigating social interactions and spaces where the perception of disability is influenced by the way it is communicated in the visual landscape (Guffey, 2018). The ISA has played a key role in shaping socio-political relations in social situations.

3

It is important to question disability as a concept and understand the role that identity and representation play in disabled people's experiences in order to analyse the limitations of the ISA. Tom Shakespeare, disability scholar, describes the evolution of disability representation to have met challenges which either portrayed disability as a primarily medical matter or from a very singular, individual experience. ‘While the problems of disabled people have been explained historically in terms of [...] biological deficit, the disability movement has focused attention onto social oppression, cultural discourse, and environmental barriers’ (Shakespeare, 2017, 195-196). Previous representation of disability was fixated on the physicality of disability whereas contemporary analysis has shifted the focus onto the external forces that render people disabled.

Shakespeare (2017) interprets the key differences in which the medical and social model of disability operate, suggesting that the terminology used to describe disabled people in the medical mindset would be ‘“people with disabilities”’ whereas the social would be ‘“disabled people’” (Shakespeare, 2017, 198).

Disability scholar Sara Goering (2015) expands on this mainstream approach to defining disability, describing this typical mindset to view disability as a bodily impairment or medical condition, that holds someone back from being able to do the normal activities that people without the impairments can do. Alternatively, the social model of disability views disability as the limitation society has put on someone with an impairment (Goering, 2015). Part of the reason the social model

4

emerged was to encourage disability empowerment and changing perceptions of disability (Oliver, 1995).

Disabled people tend to resonate more with the social model than the medical model in that ‘the main disadvantage they experience does not stem directly from their bodies, but rather from their unwelcome reception in the world, in terms of how physical structures, institutional norms, and social attitudes exclude and/or denigrate them’ (Goering, 2015, 2).

The design of the ISA was a result of the growing awareness around the built and social environments having inaccessible space for disabled people, conceptualising disability through a ‘social’ lens (Guffey, 2018).

‘Since at least the nineteenth century, disabled people were largely segregated in society and remained invisible’ (Guffey, 2018, 77). Disability had long been ignored in society until the end of World War II, which saw a huge rise in injured soldiers returning home and attempting to live as ‘normal’ as before (Guffey, 2018). The modern wheelchair was invented by Herbert Everest, a disabled mining engineer, in order to alleviate the previous confinements of impairment and allow more independence for users (Guffey, 2018). The modern wheelchair became the standard for returning soldiers, allowing disability to be more visible in public settings. However, ‘for the modern wheelchair to function as designed, curb cuts, ramp and a variety of tweaks and adjustments had to be developed - to this day they form the basis for the barrier-free access movement’ (Guffey, 2018, 47). This sparked a societal shift, in which society had to recognise that disability was not

5

only a medical matter, with the wheelchair assisting restrictions of the body, it became clear the built environment was a disabling factor toward wheelchair users (Guffey, 2018).

Tim Nugent, war veteran and University of Wisconsin doctoral student from the United States had a critical role in the changing Western approaches to disability and accessibility throughout the decades following 1948 (Guffey, 2018). Nugent believed that disabled people should have the ability to exist in equality with the rest of American citizens, independently and with no assistance (Goldsmith, 2011).

Nugent had a social model of thinking, with his beliefs being that physical spaces were the disabling factor (Goldsmith, 2011). To Nugent, accessibility represented equal opportunity and inaccessibility represented exclusion (Goldsmith, 2011).

In the mid 20th century, across the West ‘it was in the nature of buildings to have steps and stairs along with narrow doors’ and ‘if people in wheelchairs wanted to use them, they would have to be helped if they were able to get in at all’ (Goldsmith, 2011, 9-10). Nugent believed that buildings shouldn’t remain the same and would advocate for the first ever national building standard: the 1961 A117.1 American Standard (Guffey, 2018). Nugent asserted that accessibility-focused standardisation would ensure buildings would be changed to accommodate disabled people, making accessibility materialise in the built environment (Goldsmith, 2011). This standardisation would be internationally influential. In Britain, there was little awareness of disability before 1964 but by 1967, the British

6

Standards Institution Committee set up ‘1967 CP96 Access for the Disabled to Buildings’ with similar aims (Goldsmith, 2011).

With the built environments changing to accommodate the wheelchair, critics noticed an impracticality in how they were supported. Nugent’s attack on barriers was successful in making accessible spaces exist, however, Nugent received criticism for believing that disability should not be highlighted in the environment, concerned that any signage would act as segregation toward disabled users (Guffey, 2018). However, Selwyn Goldsmith, another leading advocate for accessibility argued that Nugent’s no-signage aim counteracted the purpose of accessible space, making navigation harder for disabled users and adding difficulty to their experience (Guffey, 2018). Nugent argued that the addition of signage to indicate access spaces would draw negative attention to disability, he would rather access spaces were hidden in plain sight (Guffey, 2018). However, a salient critique of Nugent’s argument is that signs make information public: signage can make society more accommodating to disability and increase disability’s visibility.

Goldsmith advocated for a symbol that could both make spaces accessible to disabled users: spaces that are easily identifiable and fit the needs of disabled individuals (Guffey, 2018). Furthermore, Goldsmith argued that the creation of such marked spaces promotes sympathy towards disabled people (Guffey, 2018).

Through the lens of social and medical models, it is interesting to analyse how Nugent and Goldsmith’s ideas of space and signage both parallel and differ.

Nugent had a social focus on accessible spaces: concerned about inclusion in social spaces, however his concerns about signage were infused with the medical

7

model, fearing representation of the body becoming entangled with space.

Whereas Goldsmith had a medical model standpoint on spaces and their necessity to be sympathetic toward disabled users, with concerns over social implications of disregarding signage.

Notably, both Goldsmith and Nugent’s arguments were drawn from two very different self-contained studies. Nugent, in the US, had overseen a university establishing access spaces without signage, in which motivated young students navigated well (Guffey, 2018). On the other hand, at a similar time, Goldsmith studied a town in the UK where the results drawn were that wheelchair users were homebound and lacked independence, and in his opinion required a sympathetic approach (Guffey, 2018). Another large difference in their studies is that the wheelchair had been in widespread use in the US for decades before it had gained popularity in the UK (Guffey, 2018). Though they differed, Nugent and Goldsmith’s advocacy made room for disability to become a part of a wider and more social discussion, stressing that social responsibility and personal freedom is at the core of inclusive space and society. This led to the need for an international access symbol, which Goldsmith began to campaign for in the mid 1960’s (Guffey, 2018).

In 1970, the British Parliament passed the ‘Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act’ which outlined that where access spaces were made available, they should be signposted to allow users to find them (Guffey, 2018). Whereas in the US 1968 ‘Barrier-Free Architecture Law’, this was unacknowledged (Guffey, 2018). From then on until present day the ISA is still in use (Guffey, 2018).

8

Chapter 2: Symbols of Access: Development, Considerations and Limitations

This chapter examines the landmarks that influenced the ISA’s design and will mainly draw from Elizabeth Guffey, disability and historical design scholar, who offers insights into the key developments that impacted this.

Goldsmith’s stance on signage was controversial at the time, arguing that an emphasis should be put on space and physical needs of disabled people to support them (Guffey, 2018). Nugent, alternatively, was solely focusing on the antibarrier movement. In 1965, two symbols would materialise, one being Goldsmith’s imaginative symbol of access, and Nugent’s, a small design on a report as part of the movement (Guffey, 2018).

Figure 1. Selwyn Goldsmith, A wheelchair logo launched at the 1965 International Conference on Barriers in Stresa, Italy, 1965, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018.

9

Though they had differing purposes, Nugent’s being vaguer, this was significant as it was the first time that visualisation of accessibility and disability had occurred (Guffey, 2018).

Goldsmith’s symbol appeared at the 1965 International Conference on Barriers, held in Stresa Italy (Guffey, 2018). This depicted a silhouetted physique of a person, sitting on a wheelchair and held together inside of a bold circle. The Stresa symbol was notable for its application of the circle, inviting it into a broader communication system using pictograms which had recently been adopted for international travel (Guffey, 2018).

Not only did this imply the importance of disability representation, it was also a marker of the first time disability was part of an international conversation, defying the barriers of language.

Figure 2. Timothy Nugent, The No Barriers Logo, 1965, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018

10

Nugent’s design appeared in 1965, on a report from the campaign against architectural barriers (Guffey, 2018). Showing a step motif, held within a circle, it was accompanied by the word ‘accessible’. It is unclear how it should be perceived, perhaps the immediate interpretation is ‘no accessible spaces’.

However, within the context of the anti-barriers movement, the design represents Nugent’s desire for barrier-free access (Guffey, 2018).

In the 1960’s, in the US, there had been a reluctance towards the use of access signage in the disability community. People were cautious of how signs could ‘be deployed to inhibit - not empower - disabled people’ having seen the segregation signage throughout this time having this effect on Black Americans (Guffey, 2018, 97). Though signage would arguably be needed as directional matter, there was concern around how this would overlap with identity and public perceptions of disability.

Directional signage was introduced in Canada in 1965, by the Canadian Research Council under the National Building Council (Guffey, 2018). It was intended to act as a guide to access spaces by using ‘a stylized circle motif enclosing a zig zag line, and accompanied by a directional arrow’ (Guffey, 2018, 99).

11

Figure 3. Canada’s National Research Council, Abstract Insignia for the Building Code in 1965, 1965, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018.

Significantly, this design was not a body, but steps (Guffey, 2018). Differing from Nugent’s design, this symbol finds a solution, ‘no stairs this way’. To a certain extent, this symbol combines the design cultures of Nugent and Goldsmith’s values, fixating on the built environment and directional assistance. Critics at the time argued that this design continued to show inaccessibility by depicting stairs, creating the sense of unwelcome in the form of signage; by showing something that can’t be used rather than something that can (Guffey, 2018).

Goldsmith had criticised the US focus on physical barriers and their lack of moral authority (Guffey, 2018). He shifted focus from independence to positive attitudes towards disability, making the connection between signage and positive psychology (Guffey, 2018). Stemming from this, Goldsmith ran a ‘pilot signposting

12

programme’ from 1967 to 1968 with students and staff from Norwich School of Art (Guffey, 2018). The pilot was supported by the UK government and aimed to develop pictogram signs instead of abstract symbols Goldsmith had witnessed internationally to signify accessible spaces (Guffey, 2018).

Uniquely, Goldsmith had the symbols presented to a group of 40 disabled people, allowing for accessibility to be a part of the design process, unparalleled at this time (Guffey, 2018).

The students were tasked to design a modular system of symbols that, when combined, could send different messages depending on what assisting device accompanied the symbol of the figure (Guffey, 2018).

Figure 4. Selwyn Goldsmith and students at the Norwich School of Art, Studies planned for the use of a modular symbol system, 1969, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018.

13

Notably, the group of disabled participants flagged that those with invisible disabilities should be included, to which the students responded with the symbol below, featuring both crutch and wheelchair users, with the addition of a circle cut out in the chest of a figure, representing unseen disabilities (Guffey, 2018). This was the first and last time invisible disabilities were considered in the historical development of the ISA. Nonetheless, this was significant as the disabled community had issued concern over symbols representing all disabilities.

Figure 5. Selwyn Goldsmith and students at the Norwich School of Art, Inclusive symbol, 1969, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018

14

The conclusion drawn from this pilot was that one symbol would be appropriate, and should cater to all disabilities (Guffey, 2018). The figure in the wheelchair was selected for Goldsmith’s development of a symbol of access, as it would encompass the need for access above all others in built environments (Guffey, 2018). However, this choice disregarded the disabled group’s concern over the social repercussions coming as a result of a symbol and trying to represent all.

Chapter 3: Case Study of the ISA: Considerations and Limitations

This chapter discusses the design decisions and authors of the ISA. This discussion of the ISA’s provenance facilitates a critical analysis of the limitations of the ISA, specifically regarding its limited social impact.

The design of the ISA we see today occurred in 1968 in Stockholm, Sweden (Guffey, 2018). The barrier-free access movement had spread internationally, and with so many individual symbols developing, cause for concern grew over the confusion multiple symbols could cause.

This proliferation of symbols resulted in the United Nations identifying the need for an internationally recognised symbol of access, which would be developed rapidly in accordance (Guffey, 2018).

Students in Sweden developed variations of conceptual symbols of access, under the supervision of critic and designer Victor Papanek (Guffey, 2018). Danish

15

design student, Susanne Koefoed was the initial designer of the chosen symbol for the ISA, a 2D, white wheelchair on a black background (Guffey, 2018). However, this design had to be confirmed by the charitable organisation ‘Rehabilitation International (RI), before being publicly distributed (Guffey, 2018).

Thus, Koefoed’s symbol would only be qualified with a compromise. Karl Montan, committee member of the RI called for the addition of a ‘head’ to be added to Koefoed’s symbol, which she was not involved with (Guffey, 2018). This was promptly added ahead of being shown at the 1969 World Congress (Guffey, 2018).

Figure 6. Susanne Koefoed, 1968-9, Original ISA Concept, Printed Graphic, Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey, 2018

16

Figure 7. ISA, Designed in the 1960’s by Susanne Koefoed, Digital Graphic, The Accessible Icon Project, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://accessibleicon.org/

17

Guffey (2018) described this provocative change as an ‘urgent question of access [...] bound in conflicting social priorities and practices’ (Guffey, 2018, 123) and that the ISA wheelchair figure ‘is itself a compromise between the “real world”, and the ideals that it represents’ (Guffey, 2018, 123). Montan was disabled, his career had centred around making prosthetics, and by adding a head to the design to humanise it, he unintentionally ‘created a design misfit’ (Guffey, 2018, 131). The directional purpose of the wheelchair symbol Koefoed originally designed, focusing on the assistive object and its environment, transcended into an identity and public representation of disability, by the addition of the head (Guffey, 2018). The design elements and practicality were therefore open to becoming entangled with emotiveness. Thus, with the design not leaning one way or the other in this manner, the ISA lacked clarity and was open to misinterpretation. As a result, it was neither successful in doing its duty as a practical design or being emotionallysound in representing a disabled body.

‘A frequently cited complaint regarding the ISA is that [...] the symbol itself [...] create(s) a sense of ambiguity amongst individuals’ (Vice et al., 2020, 2). What was initially a symbol for access may have transformed into a symbol of disability.

With the certain humanisation of the symbol, abstract in itself, this could leave room for the general public to perceive disability as more of a notion, rather than human experience. Moreover, it doesn’t represent the disability experience as a whole, and risks over simplifying what is a complex, individual experience which comes in multiple forms (Vice et al., 2020).

18

As the symbol became recognised internationally, being accepted by the United Nations in 1974, it was generally viewed as a success by government agencies (Guffey, 2018). But many people in the design community were not convinced (Guffey, 2018). The RI agreed with Goldsmith’s outlook, that the more increasing exposure of the ISA to the public would result in expanding public awareness of disability (Guffey, 2018).

Guffey (2018, 142) argues that the ISA ‘visualised a kind of “fit” between citizens and the environment’, bridging the gap for disabled people to be able to exist in social spheres. However, with the ISA becoming a marker of identity, in juxtaposition, the ISA could make many citizens who use access spaces misfit with the environment, by misinforming the public that the disabled community all use wheelchairs and should fit this depiction. Thus, resulting in discrimination and marginalisation for those who don’t fit the ISA’s representation of disability.

Though the ISA marked a significant step in disability becoming visualised for the first time, over time it has accumulated negative societal attitudes with disability perceptions and representations (Guffey, 2018).

Chapter 4: Representing Disability: The Invisible Issue

My personal experience as an individual living with invisible disabilities is one characterised as conflict: a conflict with my own identity.

Disability scholar, Samuels (2017), suggests that one reason for not openly identifying as disabled is people’s preference for simplicity, reasoning that the

19

social implication of presenting as disabled is better avoided if you have the ability to do so. However, most people with invisible disabilities pass as someone without disability unintentionally. This ‘identity’ is being predetermined for them by onlookers, deriving information about them based on their looks in relation to what they may recognise disability as, perhaps those who require a wheelchair (Samuels, 2017; Wendell, 1997).

Samuels (2017) has made comparisons between coming out as disabled as a nonvisible disabled person and as a queer person. Samuels (2017) articulates a distinction between ‘coming out’ and ‘coming out to’ in relation to sexual identity and disability (Samuels, 2017, 346). ‘Coming out’ refers to acceptance or realisation of a person’s own identity whereas ‘coming out to’ refers to sharing that identity with others (Samuels, 2017).

Samuels (2017) asserts that a negative stigma surrounds the act of publicly identifying as disabled, preventing disabled individuals from 'coming out’. Difficult times have added to my internal conflict with identity as a disabled person, inflicted by social interactions when using accessible spaces such as disabled toilets.

I have experienced inappropriate questioning and felt unentitled when using accessible spaces. The cause of this experience is my appearance; I visually appear different from the wheelchair user depicted in the ISA. Individuals with hidden disabilities face marginalisation both within disability communities and society at large because they are unable to be placed by either, into a social category (Samuels, 2017). Author, Wendell (1997), expands on this

20

point by highlighting that invisible disabilities ‘do not fit most people’s picture of disability’ (Wendell, 1997, 164).

Samuels (2017, 352) states the key issue faced by people with invisible disabilities is that not only are they ‘marginalised in disability communities’ but there is an ‘uneasy line between those communities and the dominant culture, often facing significant discrimination because our identities are unrecognised or disbelieved’.

It can feel uncomfortable sharing your private experiences of disability. In this sense, using accessible spaces, identified by the ISA, may be avoided to steer clear of possible interrogation.

Scholar, Couser (2017), addresses this issue, pinpointing the relationship representation has with society, that it often demands a level of transparency such as when using accessible spaces. Couser (2017, 452) indicates that representation ‘exposes affected individuals to inspection, interrogation, interpretation, and violation of privacy’. Building on this, Couser (2017, 452) notes that disabled people find that ‘culture inscribes narratives on their bodies’ and as a result their representation is centred on their body, rather than being accepted or included into social spaces.

Samuels (2017) argues that people with invisible disabilities shouldn't have to resort to explaining their bodily narrative. The disabled community and the way disability is represented continues to be designed around visible disability and doing so leaves ‘non visible disabilities invisible while reinforcing the exact cultural reliance on visibility that oppresses all of us’ (Samuels, 2017, 354).

21

Garland-Thomson (2011), disability scholar, expands on the focus of the body, characterising the contemporary zeitgeist as often seeking to categorise people based on the appearance of their bodies. Garland-Thomson (2011) explores the human body and how it ‘fits’ or ‘misfits’ within the physical environment, investigating the exclusionary factors the physical environment has on people with impairments or medical conditions. The concept challenges the spaces in which everyone is expected to fit and stresses the importance of recognising the range of bodies that either fit or misfit within these places (Garland-Thomson, 2011).

Misfitting can particularly resonate with people that have invisible disabilities. While physical barriers in the built environment may not be the main issue faced by those with invisible disability, misfitting can still occur due to society’s conventional idea of disability that does not include unseen impairments or medical conditions. In the context of invisible disability, misfitting emphasises the importance of recognising the ranging experiences of disability to combat the perceptions society has on disability, solely focusing on the visible impairments of the body. The societal and cultural forces that arbitrate what disabilities are recognised and which are not, has significant social implications for the individual, the disability community and society as a whole (Wendell, 1997).

22

Case Study: Visability93

Visability93 is a project that agency McCann London created in 2018, to visualise that 93% of disabled people are not wheelchair (Typeroom, 2018). The project aims to shed light on invisible disabilities, by reimagining the ISA as a more inclusive and true representation of the array of disabilities that exist (Typeroom, 2018). Through the design of an ‘Icon Font’, 29 new symbols were made to make the most common invisible disabilities visible, with the aim to inspire new conversations in society on how visual language is used to represent disability (Typeroom, 2018).

The main purpose of this project was not to officially redesign the ISA, but rather influence people to reconsider what counts as disability (Typeroom, 2018). The designers wanted to highlight the consequences of not appearing as a wheelchair user, having your rights to access questioned and often denied (Typeroom, 2018).

Visability93 hopes to make invisible disabilities more understood.

23

Figure 8. Visability93 Icon Font, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/

24

Figure 9. Visability93 symbols visualised on accessible toilets, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/

25

Figure 10. Visability93 symbols on access spaces in car park, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/

26

Figure 11. Visability93 Symbol, 2018, McCann London, Digital Graphic, Visability93 Original Instagram Page, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.instagram.com/visability93/

The project goes as far as to represent those who may have undiagnosed disabilities, which could help alleviate their experience navigating access spaces by keeping their experience private and validating it through design, potentially easing an already stressful experience for someone.

In a beautiful way, this project has given a second life to Norwich School of Arts' forgotten symbol that included awareness for hidden disabilities. Visability93 has brought more reality and connection to the body, visualising different disabilities and developing them to communicate one disability alone at a time.

27

Visability93 is for both people with disabilities and society, advocating for visual language to accumulate more of a connection between the two, rather than separateness.

Though Visability93 has received praise for its positive impact on disability representation, for many people, this project potentially conceals their disability further, having not included the less common invisible or visible disabilities. The project selected a range of disabilities to visualise, but only chose the most common (Typeroom, 2018). This provokes the question of how inclusive the concept is, if it continues to leave disabilities out. The project determines what counts as disability, so if someone's disability was not shown, this could marginalise them further in society and the disabled community. Couser (2017) emphasises that representation is about creating inclusion and not difference. The aim should be to prevent people from becoming marginalised from a group that is already on the fringes of society when it comes to identifying and representing disability (Davis, 2013). Visability93 allows for more people to ‘fit’ perceptions of disability, but simultaneously creates ‘misfits’ who are unrepresented.

Drawing on previous points, there is still a strong dominance in appearance with this project. Perhaps as a result of the ISA becoming an identity, it set the road for access symbols to follow this route and pick up the pieces - the consequences - of this. Visability93 still requests bodily narratives to be the sole determinant of disability. As a result, it tells people that they owe their impairment to the public,

28

rather than being able to exist in accessible spaces under a general understanding that they just need to use them.

Chapter 5: Final Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter first summarises the key considerations and limitations of both the ISA and alternative concepts such as Visability93 discussed throughout this thesis.

This chapter concludes with a critical discussion of the possibilities for the future of the ISA, seeking to spread awareness of disability identity, and ultimately make accessible spaces more inclusive for all disabilities.

The significance of the ISA is that it was selected ‘to represent this ideal of barrierreduced architecture’ being an ‘assistive device for people with mobility impairments’ but ultimately ‘signifies disablement as much as it signifies facilitated access’ (Ben-Moshe and Powell, 2007, 494). The role of the ISA transitioned from solely being an assistive, directional device to becoming a representation of what disability looks like. The symbol’s creation was a landmark for disability awareness for the public, highlighting barriers, and allowing for disabled people into social spaces (Guffey, 2018). However, the ISA has simultaneously had a consequential effect on those unaided by a wheelchair but are entitled to use accessible spaces (Ben-Moshe and Powell, 2007). Overall, the ISA’s key limitation is that it does not serve the disability community as a whole, rather it ‘establishes boundaries

29

between those who are ‘legitimately disabled’, and thus eligible for services and accommodations, and those who are not’ (Ben-Moshe and Powell, 2007, 494).

A positive aspect of the ISA is that the wheelchair represented the changing attitudes and ability of disabled people to access public spaces. In terms of disability activism, the ISA perhaps acted as an ‘identification with peers resulting from having a common symbol and territory’ (Ben-Moshe and Powell, 2007, 495).

With the symbol being the internationally mainstream recognition of disability, to activists the symbol’s tangibility is a source of power (Guffey, 2018).

The ISA has been recognised for over fifty years, considering how long it has been in use to signpost access spaces, the ability to change its design is relatively hard as it takes years to be innovated and accepted by governments as well as to become recognised on an international level (Ben-Moshe and Powell, 2007; Guffey, 2018).

The ISA is a problematic design, entangled in identity. Its potential to become more inclusive of the ranging experiences of disability would entail the continuation of visualising bodily narratives seen with Visability93. This attempt at challenging, what is already a design misfit, maintains the controversial focus of the body being the disabling factor. Alternative concepts such as Visability93 that aim to do good through inclusionary design choices, perhaps, create more problems. By emphasising identities, this continues to make users of accessible spaces owe their bodily narratives to the public, as well as ignoring the key problem of

30

representing disability as a whole. From a designer’s perspective, perhaps trying to depict the array of ways disability can look would make a symbol system more confusing and harder to recognise (Guffey, 2018). Moreover, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, at which point people would be left unrepresented.

The dualism of fitting and misfitting appears to persist, with alternative solutions to the ISA that seek to exhibit more inclusiveness, unintentionally disregarding bigger problems of identity at play.

From a positive point of view, there is a chance for designers to find a solution to the social repercussions of the ISA. The challenge is educating society on disabled identities without undermining the well-established ISA or contributing to the complications of identity. This could help to alleviate problems imposed by the ISA and make disability better understood by the public. Furthermore, these considerations have the potential to make the ISA and access spaces more accessible for the disabled community.

Carrying out fieldwork around Edinburgh, I have come across an interesting addition to the ISA, to make accessible spaces more clearly signposted for all disabilities.

31

Figure 12. ‘Not all disabilities are visible’ sign on University of Edinburgh toilets, Edinburgh, Penny Bremner, 15 October 2023

This is the first accessible toilet I have seen that challenges public preconceptions of disability. Using the statement ‘Not all disabilities are visible’ reminds the public that disability can be hidden and subtly asks people not to identify disability as only wheelchair users. Non-Visible Disabilities (NEDV) signage has been introduced as a way to accommodate and invite more people to use accessible toilets (Slater and Jones, 2021). This addition to the ISA helps people feel welcomed to use accessible spaces that are made for them.

This looks like the right path for the ISA to become more representative of all disabilities. The ISA itself doesn’t change but can have additional text to achieve this. In relation to Visability93’s approach to inclusivity, this addition deflects marginalisation that Visability93 accidentally creates, by avoiding depicting an

32

identity, rather creating a conversation with the viewer about their preconceptions of disability. Making the point that disability hasn’t got one look, or a look at all.

Rather, it requests the viewer to stop relating disability to appearance in the first place. I feel better represented by this sign, viewing myself as someone worthy of accessible spaces, not a fraud whilst more welcomed by the public.

Designers throughout the development of the ISA argued that if a symbol needs additional text, the symbol is inadequate (Guffey, 2018). Through this lens, the additional text, ‘not all disabilities are visible’ emphasises the failure of the ISA to represent all disabilities.

Figure 13. Inclusive toilet sign, Grace Warnock, 2018-2019, Image of Grace’s Sign, Points of Light Website, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.pointsoflight.gov.uk/graces-sign/

33

Grace’s Sign is a symbol designed by Grace Warnock, from East Lothian, as part of her campaign to raise awareness for users of accessible spaces with invisible disabilities (Points of Light, n.d). Grace developed the signage in response to discrimination she had faced whilst using accessible toilets (Points of Light, n.d).

Grace’s Sign depicts the ISA alongside the male and female figures seen on toilet doors, though they have been adorned with a red heart icon that sits boldly on the black silhouettes. Underneath sits the words ‘Accessible Toilet’ printed in white and in braille. The sign has been recognised by the Scottish Parliament and has been introduced onto hundreds of accessible toilet doors in Scotland (Points of Light, n.d). Grace’s Sign overcomes the challenge of not being able to change the ISA, rather adding to it whilst avoiding the body-as-identity constant seen in other alternatives to the ISA that aim to be more inclusive. Grace’s Sign sets an example of the possibilities for the future of the ISA and how inclusivity can be established through design, in order to have the same effect on society.

Conclusion

This research endeavoured to uncover the considerations and limitations of the ISA to develop an understanding of the future possibilities for the symbol and access signage, to make disabled identities drawn from the signage inclusive to all disabled users, so that they can use accessible spaces without discrimination.

Furthermore, this dissertation discussed the ISA’s relationship with accessible

34

spaces, disability representation and how this impacted the disabled community it intends to support.

This dissertation, through relevant literature and auto-ethnographic accounts articulates the importance of the ISA and the primary considerations of its development.

The limitations discussed are that the ISA represents disability, but ultimately does not accurately do so. Disability is a complex and heterogeneous experience, not exclusive to wheelchair users. Moreover, the social impact of the ISA representing only wheelchair users is that disabled people who don’t use a wheelchair become reluctant to use spaces sought to support them, as a result of facing discrimination for not being wheelchair users; the identity the public perceives as disability as a result of the ISA’s design.

‘Designers can play a major role in how impaired individuals view themselves and are viewed by the public’ (Murphy, 1993, 5). This research highlights the social responsibility of designers. It takes a certain bravery to challenge a design that has achieved so much, but ceasing to creates a barrier for improvement. What we have presently are accessible spaces, still inaccessible for people. There is a clear need to find design solutions to the social implications of the ISA. Designing signage that validates disabled people’s right to use accessible spaces and catalyses inclusive discussions and understandings of disability.

35

Bibliography

Ben-Moshe, L. and Powell, J.J.W. (2007) ‘Sign of our times? Revis(it)ing the International Symbol of Access’, Disability & Society, 22(5), pp. 489–505. Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/10.1080/09687590701427602.

Couser, T.G. (2017) ‘Chapter 32: Disability, Life Narrative, and Representation’, in Davis, L. J., The Disability Studies Reader (Fifth Edition). 5th edn. New York, N.Y: Routledge, pp. 450–453. Available at: https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic _details%7C3929393?account_id=10673&usage_group_id=105398.

Crow, L. (2010) ‘Including All of Our Lives: Renewing the social model of disability’, in Walsh, C. et al., Equality, Participation and Inclusion 1: Diverse Perspectives.

2nd edn. London, England: Routledge, pp. 124–140.

Davis, L.J. (2013) ‘Chapter 20: The End of Identity Politics: On Disability as an Unstable Catagory’, in The Disability Studies Reader. 4th edn. New York, N.Y: Routledge, pp. 262–277. Available at: https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic _details%7C3929393?account_id=10673&usage_group_id=105398.

36

Garland-Thomson, R. (2011) ‘Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept’, Hypatia, 26(3), pp. 591–609. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15272001.2011.01206.x.

Goering, S. (2015) ‘Rethinking disability: the social model of disability and chronic disease’, Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 8(2), pp. 134–138.

Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9273-z.

Goldsmith, S. (2011) Designing for the Disabled, The New Paradigm. London: Routledge.

Guffey, E. (2018) Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society. London: Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing.

Murphy, B. (1993) ‘Symbols of Access: Revision and Development of Symbols for the Sight-, Hearing-, Speech-, and Mobility Impaired’ Master of Fine Arts Thesis.

University of Cincinnati.

Oliver, M. (1995) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Points of Light (no date) ‘Grace’s Sign’, Points of Light - Prime Minister’s Office 10 Downing Street. Available at: Figure 13. Grace’s Sign - Inclusive toilet sign seen across Scotland’s accessible toilets, Grace Warnock, 2018-2019, Printed Graphic,

37

Points of Light Website, Accessed 2nd January 2024, https://www.pointsoflight.gov.uk/graces-sign/ (Accessed: 2 January 2024).

Samuels, E. (2017) ‘Chapter 25: My Body, My Closet: Invisible Disability and the Limits of Coming Out’, in Davis, L. J., The Disability Studies Reader (Fifth Edition).

5th edn. New York, N.Y: Routledge. Available at: https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic _details%7C3929393?account_id=10673&usage_group_id=105398.

Shakespeare, T. (2017) ‘Chapter 13: The Social Model of Disability’, in Davis, L. J., The Disability Studies Reader (Fifth Edition). 5th edn. New York, N.Y: Routledge, pp. 195–203. Available at: https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic _details%7C3929393?account_id=10673&usage_group_id=105398.

Slater, J. and Jones, C. (2021) ‘Toilet Signs as Border Markers: Exploring Disabled Peoples Access to Space’, International Journal of Disability and Social Justice, 1(1), pp. 50–72. Available at: https://doi.org/10.13169/intljofdissocjus.1.1.0050.

The Accessible Icon Project (no date) The Accessible Icon Project. Available at: http://accessibleicon.org (Accessed: 16 January 2024).

38

Titchkosky, T. (2011) The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning.

Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Typeroom (2018) ‘Visability93: McCann London raises awareness for invisible disabilities by reimagining International Symbol of Access’, Typeroom. Available at: https://www.typeroom.eu/article/visability93-mccann-london-raises-awarenessinvisible-disabilities-reimagining-international-symbolaccess#:~:text=The%20project%20was%20created%20by,of%20all%20people%2 0with%20disabilities. (Accessed: 1 January 2024).

Vice, J. et al. (2020) ‘Effectiveness of the International Symbol of Access and inclusivity of other disability groups’, Disability and Health Journal, 13(1), pp. 1–6.

Visability93 (2018) Instagram, Visability93. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/visability93/ (Accessed: 2 January 2024).

Wendell, S. (1997) The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. 1st edn. New York, N.Y: Routledge.

Wendell, S. (2017) ‘Chapter 11: Unhealthy Disabled: Treating Chronic Illnesses as Disabilities’, in Davis, L. J., The Disability Studies Reader (Fifth Edition). 5th edn.

New York, N.Y: Routledge, pp. 160–172. Available at:

39

https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic _details%7C3929393?account_id=10673&usage_group_id=105398.

40