Expressive buildings are celebrated for their aesthetic beauty, but how often are these structures sympathetic towards end user’s limitations and needs. While a design with an ideal user in mind inhibits universal acceptance and adaptation, a design distinguishing user group with specific limitations excludes its usability for others, leading to social isolation. These designs are based on general behavioural assumptions, for instance – elderly individuals are expected to live under constant care and supervision in specialized facilities, but this is only due to the lack of buildings that support independent living in the first place. As suggested by Dorothy Rutherford (a resident of Mirabella Retirement Community in Portland, OR) in an interview, if given a chance to live in such places, people would have a healthier independent lifestyle with higher level of social inclusion. In case of blind individuals, as suggested by Architect Christopher Downey, a multi-sensory experience facilitated by design is of utmost importance in their definition of a place. Carefully designed spaces to enhance certain acoustical, thermal, kinetic, and even olfactory experiences, support their way of navigation through experiential cognitive map of the building. When such design incorporates a simple plan-configuration with limited and clear signages, a strong perceptual access for visual connection, and architectural differentiation through distinctive elements, it automatically eliminates disorientation and enables easy wayfinding for multiple users adding to the legibility of the building. The lack in provision of universal and inclusive design is an immediate repercussion of limited relation between user(receiver) and the designer(provider). 

A successful design is not based on assumptions, instead it is a direct derivative of user participation, observation, and analysis. Only through active user input can a designer truly uncover the multilayered nature of universal design. However, the involvement of multiple stakeholders like, owner and administrative groups, often overpowers the decisions making process, thus completely eliminating user input from the design equation. Multiple strategies can be implemented to gather user and stakeholders input, for instance – interviews, work sessions, and questionnaires are some of the most effective forms of user involvement, which allows designer to assess collected data based on the of scope of the project. Focused interviews can surely aid in comprehending respondent’s desires, preferences, and a general understanding of a place, however, it is not effective when a large amount of easily comparable and quantifiable data is required. In such cases, consciously and carefully designed standard questionnaires for specific audience can definitely provide a solution. 

All the data collected through these techniques could be overwhelming unless organized and analyzed to convert it into useful information. Different forms of computer programs can facilitate this process, but initial programming and design charrettes must be intuitive and should include easily understandable techniques to gather and improvise significant information, like brown sheets and analysis cards. Finally, this information starts to form certain patterns that can be validated and used to shape the design of a space. These patterns generate designs that reflect user’s preferences and desires for their built environment. For instance – certain design patterns presented by Christopher Alexander reflect universally desired attributes derived through active behavioural observations and user participation. These universal characteristics of a space are highly dependent on the specificity of the user group which might alter the variables, but the core guidelines remain the same