Abstract
This study is a follow-up to the work of developing quantitative evaluation indicators for universal design, and the purpose was to develop a user-oriented evaluation system unlike preceding research focused on experts. To this end, the study was conducted using 5-principles, 15-components, and 14-user types as a result of the previous research. As a result of the AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) analysis, the disabled showed high weighted values focusing on convenience and safety, while The disadvantaged person to mobility and the person not disadvantageous to mobility showed high weighted values centered on safety in 5-principles. It is seems to be caused by the difference between the disabled and the non-disabled. The disabled, the disadvantaged person to mobility, and he person not disadvantageous to mobility showed high importance in safety and convenience, while the experts showed high importance in equity and safety. This has led to confirmation that there are different perspectives between users and professionals. For the 15-components to be used as user-oriented evaluation indicators, user groups and experts showed contrasting forms for the weighted values of convenient space & materials, low physical effort, and maintainability. In addition, the degree of importance of users has been significantly higher for safety and crime prevention. As a result, it reaffirmed that there is a gap between users and experts. Based on the above results, this study presented evaluation indicators and score reflecting the results of the difference in a global weighted value for 3-user groups, and it is meaningful as the first step in transitioning to a quantitative evaluation system that reflects the user's view of maintaining the concept of universal design.