1

The Challenge Workshop -

a designer-friendly, cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer mechanism to promote

innovative thinking in different contexts.

Julia Cassim

Royal College of Art Helen Hamlyn Centre

Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU, UK

julia.cassim@rca.ac.uk

tel: + 44 - 20 7590 4582 (dir) + 44 - 7890 489829

International DMI Education Conference

Design Thinking: New Challenges for Designers, Managers and Organizations

14-15 April 2008, ESSEC Business School, Cergy-Pointoise, France

2

The Challenge Workshop -

a designer-friendly, cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer mechanism to promote

innovative thinking in different contexts.

Julia Cassim

Royal College of Art Helen Hamlyn Centre

Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU, UK

julia.cassim@rca.ac.uk

Keywords: knowledge transfer mechanisms, inclusive design, designer education,

innovation

Aims and Structure

This paper will look at a knowledge transfer mechanism based on the DBA Inclusive

Design Challenge, a mentored inclusive design competition organised annually since

2000 by the author at the Royal College of Art Helen Hamlyn Centre in

collaboration with the Design Business Association, the major trade association for

designers in the UK. The educational rationale and impact of the Challenge on

participants will be described as will its evolving iterations – 24 and 48 hour

Challenges as well as three-day Challenge Workshops developed for different

contexts in the UK and internationally. Case studies of design prototypes that have

resulted from them will be given to illustrate how sensory and physical disability has

been used as a targeted strategy in its own right to drive design ideas in different

ways.

An outline will be given on how the Challenge and the Challenge workshops have

been structured to suit the time frame, constraints and nature of the context in which

they have been held to ensure delivery of its key aims. These centre on the

visualisation of innovative and inclusive mainstream design solutions across design

3

disciplines through an experiential and immersive process of inclusive design

knowledge transfer - one that aims to educate designers, design managers and

engineers about the nature of the inclusive design process, alert them to its potential

for innovation and provide them with both creative stimulus and a set of

methodologies that can be readily applied to their working practice.

The Wider Design Industry Context and Issues

London has been long recognised as a key international centre for design activity

with the 2005 Cox report highlighting the importance of the creative industries in the

generation of UK national wealth and competitiveness (1)1. Cox defines creativity as

the generation of new ideas with innovation the successful exploitation of them.

However, design is seen as the central motor linking the two that ensures that the

possibilities inherent in both are successfully realised and actively exploited. Take

away design and you are left with a two-legged stool the report seems to suggest.

The design industry in the UK in particular is intensely competitive and designers

are all too aware of the need to maintain their creative and competitive edge if they

or the consultancy that employs them is to survive. According to “The Business of

Design,” the 2005 Design Council report (2)2, 59% of design consultancies in the

UK employ fewer than five people with 47,400 freelance and self-employed

designers competing against their bigger rivals. It is a world where being able to

prove that you are more innovative and/or specialist than your competitors is

essential. Given the time and resource-poor nature of their situation how are

designers to do this on a consistent or permanent basis? This paper will argue that

engaging with extreme users and the lateral scenarios they present is one way of

achieving it.

4

For the 77,100 in-house designers mentioned in the same report, the challenges are

similar. Their tenure may be more secure than their freelance or small consultancy

counterparts but working within a large organization brings its own set of

challenges. They may only be responsible for a small part of the design process and

therefore less able to develop the broad-ranging skills that are crucial for survival by

their freelance or small consultancy peers. They may be highly specialist in one area

but are not necessarily exposed to the variety and fresh challenges of projects that

lay outside their domain and may struggle to remain stimulated in a situation where

they are expected to innovate on par with the design industry outside. Nowhere is

this more evident than in Japan where the design industry presents a strongly

contrasting profile to that of the UK. In-house designers are the norm and far

outnumber those working for small independent consultancies and job mobility is

low.

But whatever their situation, designers live in a world that is changing in

demographic and social terms, where the demands of the market are beginning to

reflect this new reality. In the period between the introduction of the 1995 Disability

Discrimination Act (DDA)(3)3 and its enactment ten years later, disability legislation

relating in particular to the built environment and the delivery of public services

increased exponentially. The DDA was followed by Part M of the Building

Regulations in 1999; the adoption of the British Standard BS8300 in 2001(4)4

relating to the design of disability-friendly buildings in 2005 by BS 7000-6 (5)5

relating to design management and the revision of Part M (4)6and in 2007 by a

requirement that all planning applications for new buildings have an access

statement meaning that accessibility is considered before the first brick is laid.

5

Legislation such as this accompanied by the ageing demographic and UK

governmental policy that has placed social inclusion high on the agenda have been

significant drivers in raising awareness of the need for an inclusive approach to

design and to the powerful business case for environments, services and products

that are age and disability friendly.

Designer Perceptions of Inclusive Design, Age and Disability

But for designers, age and disability have traditionally been viewed as problem areas

– both are seen as linked to qualities that militate against their core aspirations and

values and as placing severe restrictions on their creative freedom. For product

designers, it centres on how they can reconcile the functionality that both groups

require with the need for the edgy aesthetics that the market demands. For designers

working in visual communications, the challenge is how to be inclusive in terms of

message and delivery and neither stereotype nor alienate. And for designers working

in all disciplines, making sense of the plethora of guidelines that have accompanied

such legislation has been problematic. Few take account of the high rates of

dyslexia in the creative industriesor are written in a designer-friendly format and

tend to be prescriptive rather than inspirational(7).7

The DBA Inclusive Challenge and its different iterations have been a direct response

to this situation. All have sought to respond to the question “How can one can

inspire and educate designers about inclusive design in a way that takes account of

their situation and delivers non-text-based methodologies that are readily applicable

to their working practice?”

The DBA Inclusive Design Challenge and the development of the

Challenge Workshops

6

The first DBA Inclusive Design Challenge was held in 2000 but had its origins in a

previous initiative – the small-scale product challenges organised during the

DesignAge action research programme at the Royal College of Art, which led to the

creation of the Helen Hamlyn Centre in 1999. Where the product challenges had

encouraged professional designers to work with older consumers, the newly-

configured Challenge asked them to work with young ‘extreme users’ – i.e. those

with severe physical and sensory impairments over a period of five months.

The rationale was an extension of a methodology developed by the author in Japan

in her work with visually impaired museum visitors designing exhibitions and

interpretative materials for them between 1993 and 1998. It was based on the idea

that understanding the needs of ‘extreme’ users and their ‘extreme’ context of use

could inspire a different set of insights and deliver innovative solutions that would

be welcomed by mainstream users, as had proved to be the case in Japan (8)8 (9)

9.

Disability as a Targeted Strategy for Innovative Thinking

The emphasis on younger ‘extreme users’ over older users with the minor

incremental disabilities of age was deliberate. Where the latter were less likely to

have developed a range of creative strategies in response to the failure of the

designed world to meet their needs, the younger users whose disability was more

severe and acquired earlier tended to display a more robust and innovative approach

to design failure and were likely to be technologically literate. The lateral strategies

they adopted and in particular the different communication modes used by those

with the sensory disabilities of hearing or visual impairment were seen as being a

treasure house of potential new design ideas since so many mainstream nomadic

communication devices have their roots in the assistive technologies they use.

The benefits of such users to designers were that they would be working with their

contemporaries. This, it was felt, would facilitate empathy and understanding

7

between the two groups since their tastes and aspirations were likely to coincide

even where their life styles might be radically different. Also that it would be easier

to establish a working relationship based on equality where the disabled person was

seen not as a passive ergonomic test subject but rather as a design partner who could

offer:

• alternative viewpoints and lateral strategies

• detailed analysis of design failure

• facilitate first-principle thinking

• underline the need for sound ergonomics

• challenge preconceptions

• focus attention on the issue of the stigma of poor design and the need for

mainstream aesthetics at all times.

The ergonomic and social insights and lateral strategies adopted by these users have

indeed proved to be a rich seam of innovative design thinking and inspired a

catalogue of innovative design concepts some of which have been taken forward into

production.

The Structure and Evolution of the Challenge

The DBA Inclusive Design Challenge takes place over a period of five months,

deliberately replicating the span of the average design project to ensure that the

lessons learned are readily applicable to everyday design practice. Throughout this

period, the short-listed teams are mentored by the author at different stages of the

design-development process. To launch this, a joint workshop is held where

participants are briefed on the business and creative case for inclusive design and on

the Challenge theme. They receive a resource pack tailored to their project

containing web links to appropriate sites and the contact details of experts who can

provide them with contextual and other information. Initially they were provided

8

with text-based information but this was viewed as less helpful than web links. The

designers saw them as easier to navigate, more current in information terms and with

the important inspirational element of serendipity in that the designer could pursue

leads of their own in a process akin to the brainstorming nature of idea development

that characterises the start of any design project.

Framing the Brief

Until 2006, the brief for the DBA Inclusive Design Challenge was general rather

than prescriptive, allowing the teams to focus on areas that they wished to

investigate and were pertinent to their design speciality. This was to ensure that the

expertise gained was immediate and applicable particularly when pitching for new

projects. After participation, the inclusive element that the design firms were able to

add to their proposals gave them a competitive edge over their rivals and has resulted

in their winning projects in the teeth of fierce competition.

With sponsorship from the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) in 2006/7, a

further brief was added which centred on the prevention of ‘Slips Trips and Turns

(STATS) resulting in a mixed bag of projects(10)10

For the 2007/8 Challenge, the

short-listed teams could choose between a general brief or a dementia-related one

devised by the London Centre for Dementia Care at University College London for

the sponsor, Sanctuary Care, a major UK care home provider. All chose the latter

since Sanctuary Care was willing to facilitate the crucial interaction between

dementia sufferers and their professional carers in the variety of schemes that they

ran overcoming a major ethical hurdle to user participation. This and the fact that

they were seen as a potential client were new incentives.

For other iterations of the Challenge, the brief is either kept general or is framed

around a given theme such as that at the first 24 Hour Inclusive Design Challenge at

9

Include 2005 which centred on issues facing older and disabled people in relation to

transport. For a corporate workshop, the brief is tailored to its overall aim.

Altruism, Curiosity and New Skills

With the quality of presentations and proposals rising each year, the Challenge

demands high levels of commitment and time by the shortlisted teams – they

estimate that their average spend in design time and presentation costs as being

between £20,000 - £35,000. All cited altruism and curiosity as reasons to participate

along with the chance to acquire new skills, deepen in-house teamwork in large

firms and gain the enhanced public profile the Challenge offers to small or regional

firms in particular. The Awards Event held at the Royal College of Art that marks

the end of the process has become a staple of the design calendar in the UK and

receives wide coverage nationally and internationally in both specialist design and

general publications and has a dedicated publication of its own called ‘Challenge’

(‘Innovate’ between 2001 to 2004), edited by the author (10) (11).1112

To date 42 projects have resulted from the Challenge involving over 400 designers

some of whom have participated more than once in what could be termed a form of

viral marketing. When they move firms, they persuade their new colleagues to take

part.

The Importance of Effective Presentation

The short-listed design teams are obligated to produce a six-minute final

presentation in any media for public presentation at the Awards event. This element

has been integrated into the Challenge workshops irrespective of their duration as

well as the 24 and 48 Hour Challenges. Separate prizes are given for Best Idea and

Best presentation since the two are not always synonymous. At the 48 Hour

Inclusive Design Challenge in Kyoto, for example, the best idea went to a

10

customisable remote control which has since been prototyped while the best

presentation prize went to a packaging concept which was rudimentary but presented

in an entrancing and graphically interesting manner by the team.

Fig 1: U-control a customizable remote control that won the Best Idea prize at 48 Hour

Inclusive Design Challenge at the IAUD 2nd International Conference on Universal Design,

Kyoto 2006 . Below: Any Pack the packaging project that won the Best Presentation prize

By emphasizing the importance of communicating inclusive design, it was felt that:

• Designers could become equally effective advocates to their clients of inclusive

design strategies and solutions alongside their creative directors and business

managers.

11

• The restrictions of a six-minute time limit for the final presentation would be a

self-editing mechanism to ensure focus on the key design issues, which would

eliminate the tendency to produce complex unworkable solutions.

New Challenge Iterations

The Challenge was a stand-alone annual event until January 2005 when the author

was asked to work with Sieberthead, a structural packaging design specialist and the

Henley Centre, the strategic futures and marketing consultancy. The aim was to

develop a three-day innovation workshop for staff of a multinational packaging giant,

Reckitt Benkiser. Sieberthead had taken part in the Challenge twice and been

impressed by the creative stimulus, rapid knowledge transfer and internal teamwork

the experience had engendered. They felt this would benefit Reckitt Benkiser’s

internal design, new business, marketing, sales and R & D teams. The focus was on

inclusive packaging innovation and the workshop was structured to integrate those

elements of the Challenge considered crucial to the delivery of new design ideas the

most important of which was the use of two sets of extreme users – one to provide

detailed analysis of existing products to help participants gain a detailed

understanding of design failure and critique the final design ideas and the second

group to drive the ideation process.

The workshop resulted in 18 new packaging ideas and established the blueprint for

three-day cross-disciplinary workshops of which three have been held for major

companies in Japan and Finland and four for design students in Israel and Japan with

two further one-day versions held in collaboration with the College of Occupational

Therapists in London.(12)13

Three-day workshops have also been held for design and engineering students in

Israel and Japan but the contextual content was changed to reflect the different needs of the

participants and their lack of design and project management expertise. There was less

12

emphasis on the business case for inclusive design and more on user-centred methodologies

and process but with major stimuli provided as before by users. In Japan, the students

worked with users with severe disabilities while in Israel they were required to find

individuals or groups whose situation encapsulated design problems they could address. The

three-day workshop centred on a concentrated experience of user-centred research

methods culminating in a group design project by each team.

While the basic elements of the workshops remained the same, it was structured to

take account of the students’ inexperience in design and project management and

move them through the different stages of understanding so that they could arrive at a viable

solution within a strict time frame and communicate it effectively. The following activities

were preceded by presentations by the author covering the context of inclusive

design, ‘quick and dirty’ ethnographic research methods, multiple scenario-building

and presentation techniques. The students were required to:

• Analyse design failure

• Reconfigure or enhance existing products to become more inclusive

• Source and document vital contextual information from diverse users and contexts

• Isolate design opportunities from this information

• Develop multiple scenarios and the ability to storyboard them

• Effectively present their ideas within a strict time limit.

Creating a Skills Balance

In the first Reckitt Benkiser workshop one crucial element was lacking. Of the 30

employees present only one was a designer. The brainstorming sessions with users

produced a large number of ideas but none of the participants could visualise them

convincingly as they were generated and then amend and refine them sufficiently for

assessment and further development. For the two-hour DBA Inclusive Design

13

Challenge user forums, the design teams routinely sketch and storyboard ideas and

can progress them significantly.

The lack of such ‘visualizers’ hampered progress and their involvement is now

integral to collaborative Challenge workshops involving participants with no design

skills but with expertise in other areas who may not share a common conceptual

language or focus. Teams are structured to ensure that there is a majority of designers

to engineers and others and that there is at least one designer with visual

communication skills who can frame the final presentation.

The ability of designers to synthesize and visualize overall concepts, storyboard them

and generate multiple scenarios has proved invaluable to this ideation process,

irrespective of who is involved. It has enabled concepts to be explored with a greater

degree of sophistication and detail than might otherwise have been possible and lifted

them from the realm of theory to explored and practical possibility.

Strategic Selection of Users

Similarly, extreme users are chosen in consideration of two factors – firstly to meet

the essential ergonomic imperatives of the project and reflect the spectrum of

disability so that there is not an emphasis on a single disability at the expense of the

broader picture particularly for the DBA Inclusive Design Challenge where

participants work with multiple users. Thus, sensory and physical disability are

always represented. However, a user with a specific disability can be strategically

selected to drive the focus of design ideas in a particular direction and encourage a

first principle solution where common products are being redesigned. This approach

was adopted for two projects from the DBA Inclusive Design Challenge - the

“Handle with Care’ mug in 2002 and the Clevername plaster in 2006.

14

Fig 2: Three ‘extreme users who worked with the

Design team from Pearson Matthews for the

Clevername plaster which won the DBA

Inclusive Design Challenge 2005.

In each case a ‘wild card user’ was added to the panel advising the teams. Neither

had use of their arms forcing the designers to see the issue from a radically different

perspective and frame a mainstream solution that also met their needs.

In the 24 and 48 Hour Inclusive Design Challenges and Challenge workshops each

team works with a single user chosen to exemplify a different issue. In this way one

can ensure a broad range of design concepts even where they all are addressing a

single theme as exemplified by the ideas generated by the 48 Hour Inclusive Design

Challenges in Kyoto in 2006 and Tokyo in 2007 and the 24 Hour Challenge at

Include 2007.

15

Fig 3: left: Audio Sphere a communications device inspired by a deaf user and right: Tag

Wear system- an embossed clothing tag system indicating size etc a project inspired by a

blind consumer. Both from the 48 Hour Inclusive Design Challenge held at the 2nd

International Conference of Universal Design in Kyoto, 2006 . Below: Kakimono and e-

paper portable scroll inspired by a deaf user at the Nikkei Design 48 Hour Challenge in

Tokyo, 2007

A second factor in user selection is consideration of their wider consumer profile to

allow the teams to explore a variety of scenarios and perspectives that are separate

from the user’s disabled identity and drive home the importance of mainstream

aesthetics and the avoidance of design stigma.

16

Fig 4: Wunder the stylish easy access underwear proposal by the Grey team that won the 48 Hour Challenge in Singapore and the user that inspired it.

The 24 Hour and 48 Inclusive Design Challenges

The first 24 Hour Challenge was trialled at the INCLUDE 2005 conference at the

Royal College of Art to see whether a quicker format than either three days or five

months could generate the same level of innovative ideas that had emerged from the

DBA Inclusive Design Challenge. Five teams led by DBA member firms entered

this 24-Hour Inclusive Design Challenge covering product, telecommunications and

interaction design and included freelance designers and others. Each worked with a

single disabled user and had to present their response to a prescriptive brief within

twenty-four hours to conference delegates with the winner decided by audience vote.

The design teams could meet their assigned user in advance to document contextual

information but did not know the theme of the challenge. The winner by popular

vote was the Applied Information Group (AIG) team who had worked closely with a

visually impaired composer and his guide dog to develop a wearable navigation

device that would give sonic clues and feedback in large transport termini and form

part of a wider service accessed via the Internet and mobile phone.

17

Other entries included a modular suitcase system, a gel-filled rubber device to bridge

the gap between platform, curb and vehicle, a smart ticket holder and PET –a

Personal Excursion Ticket that would allow travellers to access plug-in services.

(Subsequent Challenges Challenge workshops have resulted in a similar diversity of

projects)(14)14

Fig5:Babelfish and the winning team with their lead user at the INCLUDE 2005 24 Hr Inclusive Design

Challenge

The success of this event resulted in a request from the International Association of

Universal Design (IAUD) in Japan to organise a similar challenge for their

conference in Kyoto the following year involving young in-house designers drawn

from the 148 member firms of the IAUD(15)15

.

18

The Importance of Context and Cultural Factors

The different cultural context and the fact that the participants were all in-house

designers with different skills sets and company affiliations required the format to be

adjusted in two important ways. The time frame was extended to 48 Hours and five

experienced designers from the UK covering interaction, product and visual

communications were invited to lead the teams. All had participated in the DBA

Inclusive Design Challenge. This latter aspect was crucial. Japanese designers boast

impressive levels of technical skills and excel at teamwork but are conscious of the

need for a hierarchy based on age and position. This can impact on their ability or

willingness to put forward their point of view. The time constraints of the Challenge

require rapid decision-making and project management skills and the need was felt

for an external team leader. One who could drive the design development process,

bring cohesion to a group of individuals with different company affiliations, areas of

expertise and design disciplines and ensure that they hit time targets for delivery of

the final idea within a restricted time frame. The tactic was successful in all but one

case resulting in proposals of a high standard. Where it did not succeed was for the

team led by a graphic designer. Graphic design is more culturally specific and less

process driven than product design, which has clear development stages that can be

19

telescoped to an abbreviated time frame and a universal language based on

functionality. The graphic design team leader had difficulty in time management, in

pacing his team and in delivering a presentation based on a visual communication

idea. They worked with a young female wheelchair user for whom the central issue

was about removing the barriers of uncertainty about whether help was welcome or

not. The team devised a discreet but ubiquitous symbol system that would allow

those who need help or who want to offer it the ability to signal their wishes to each

other. The visual look of the symbol, the way in which the team envisaged its use

and the communication style of the presentation suited the Japanese context but were

seen as inappropriate for the UK one with which the team leader was familiar

leading to difficulties for him in project management.This points to a possible

limitation of the Challenge format in a similar context where visual communications

are concerned.

Fig 7: The problematic symbol described above.

Limitations of the Format

One clear issue arose from the Challenge workshops in Japan and the 48 Hour

20

Challenge in Singapore where there was no experienced external team leader. These

involved student designers, those with little industry experience or in-house ones

with expertise in a specific but highly focussed area. While participants could

document and identify a broad range of problem areas for the users in the initial

stages they had significant problems in:

• identifying a single design direction from a mass of documented

observations

• expanding the idea so that it encompassed not a single consumer scenario as

it related to their assigned user but a range of possibilities across multiple

consumer scenarios. This aspect is crucial to lifting the proposal from the

area of disability-specific design to a mainstream consumer context.

In the three-day Challenge workshops, it has been possible to build in intensive

tutorial sessions that have helped the teams push the final design in the latter

direction. However for the Singapore Challenge the majority of team members were

inexperienced and the 48-hour time frame was a severe limitation to their ability to

come up with a convincing proposal. The winning team were highly experienced and

there was a clear qualitative difference between their project and presentation and

those presented by the seven other teams. Thus it could be said that the 24 and 48

Hour Challenge format depends for its success on strong leadership as was the case

in Kyoto in 2006 and Tokyo in 2007 or for teams which may be inexperienced but

are composed of young confident designers with strong freelance credentials and a

broad range of conceptual and visualisation skills as was the case for the 24 Hour

Inclusive Design Challenge at Include 2007.

21

Fig 6: Patchworks – a social networking site and Epod an urban car both proposals by teams

of young freelance designers at the 24 Hour Inclusive Design Challenge at INCLUDE 2007

In Conclusion

In the eight-year period since the first DBA Inclusive Design Challenge was held,

the basic format has been developed and expanded to embrace different contexts and

cultural differences. The initial focus was product and interaction design but t has

since embraced other disciplines - visual communications, service, environmental

and spatial design. What is clear is that irrespective of the quality of the design ideas

that have emerged, in all cases the mechanism is seen as being a particularly

designer-friendly method that is capable of delivering concentrated knowledge on

the subject of inclusive design with the added advantage or acting as a powerful

stimulus to new design thinking. As such, it has been welcomed by designers

working in both in-house and small design consultancy contexts and by industry for

its ability to deliver new design solutions, foster multi-disciplinary collaboration and

teamwork and contribute to the professional development of their staff. In Japan

there has been an added bonus. There universal design tends to be viewed as age

and disability specific. The Challenge format with its broader emphasis on inclusive

design as an innovation process that repositions disability as a creative state from

22

which designers have much to learn rather than an big ergonomic negative has

allowed companies to rethink the ways in which they engage with their users. The

benefits of the design partnership model that the Challenge has established has

expanded the framework of user participation and allowed more diverse scenarios to

emerge. The high quality of ideas that have resulted from the two 48 Hour

Challenges in Kyoto and Tokyo in particular have underlined the importance of the

designer’s role in product innovation in a culture where engineering reigns supreme

and where technology alone is seen as driving the innovation agenda.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the designers, users and others who have participated in and supported these

Challenges for their dedication and the innovative, inclusive and inspiring examples of good practice for

which they have been responsible.

References

1 Cox, Sir. G (2005) Cox Review on Creativity in Business:building on the UK’s strengths, HM Treasury,

London 2 Design Council (2005) “The business of design – design industry research 2005”. Design Council,

London 3 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_1

4 British Standards Institute (2001) BS300:2001, “Design of Buildings and their approaches to meet the

needs of disabled people,” BSI, London ISBN 0 580 384381 5 British Standards Institute (2005) BS 7000-6:2005, “Design Management systems. Managing Inclusive

Design. Guide.” BSI, London ISBN 0 580 449025 6 http://www.fylde.gov.uk/documents/original/note15d.pdf

7 Cassim, J (2005) ‘Designers are Users too! – Attitudinal and Information Barriers to Inclusive

Design within the Design Community’. Proceedings of Include 2005, Royal College of Art, London. 8 Cassim J. (l998) “Into the Light - Museums & their Visually-Impaired Visitors”, Shogakkan Press, Tokyo

(in Japanese) 9 Cassim, J (2007) ‘The Touch Experience in Museums in Japan and the UK – a historical overview and

the example of Access Vision’ in “The Power of Touch Handling Objects in Museum and Heritage

Contexts,” ed: Elizabeth Pye, Left Coast Press, California 10

Cassim J. (ed) (2007) Challenge 2007, Helen Hamlyn Centre, London 11

To download a pdf version of Challenge go to: http://www.hhc.rca.ac.uk/kt/challenge/challenge.html 12

To download a pdf version of Innovate go to:

http://www.hhc.rca.ac.uk/archive/hhrc/programmes/sbp/innovate.html 13

Cassim J. (ed) (2006) Challenge 2006: how designers respond to the demands of inclusion, Helen

Hamlyn Centre, London 14

Cassim J. (ed) (2005) Challenge 2005: giving disabled people a voice in the design process, Helen

Hamlyn Centre, London 15

Cassim J. (ed) (2007) Challenge 2007, Helen Hamlyn Centre, London