Dean Homicki is the founder of Staebl and Staebl Academy, where he works across accessibility, product design, sustainability and the built environment.
Over more than 30 years, Dean has worked with architects, builders, access consultants and project teams to better understand how accessibility outcomes move from design intent into real-world use. His focus is on helping project teams, suppliers and custodians create environments that support safe, independent and dignified movement for the people who rely on them.
Originally trained as a Gold and Silversmith at RMIT Melbourne, Dean brings a deep respect for detail, materials and human experience to his work. Through Staebl, he continues to advocate for accessibility products and systems that are well-designed, installed correctly, maintained over time, and understood as essential parts of a building’s long-term responsibility.
Dean, can you share a little about your background and what has shaped your focus on accessibility and the built environment?
My background has moved through a few different disciplines, but they have all been connected by one idea: how things are made, how they are used, and how they affect people over time.
I started my entrepreneurial life as a Gold & Silversmith, which taught me about precision, material behaviour, and attention to detail. I later moved into engineering, industrial design, product development and business. Over the last 30 years, I have worked closely with architects, builders, access consultants, and project teams across many continents in the built environment.
What has shaped my focus most is seeing the gap between what is designed with good intent and what people actually experience once a building or public place is opened, maintained, and used every day. Accessibility is not just a note in a drawing or a product selection. It is part of a person’s ability to move safely, confidently, and independently through a space.
That is what continues to drive my work with Staebl.com and Staebl.academy. I am interested in how accessibility outcomes are designed, delivered, verified, maintained and protected long after practical completion. I believe in resourcing people and providing them with access to information that enables them to get where they want to go or assists them in providing their services to others.
With decades of experience across design and mobility, what have you learned from observing how environments actually perform in real life?
“I have learned that buildings are tested by people, not just by drawings.”
A space can look compliant on paper, but the real test is what happens when someone arrives with low vision, a mobility impairment, fatigue, pain, anxiety, distraction, or simply a different way of navigating than the designer imagined.
In real life, people rely on consistency. They rely on contrast, placement, touch, lighting, signage, handrails, surface condition and predictable cues. When one element is missing, poorly installed, or not maintained, it can disrupt the entire journey.
I have also learned that accessibility features do not exist in isolation. A Braille tactile sign, a TGSI, a stair nosing, a handrail, a lift button, a doorway or a path of travel are all part of a connected system. If one part of that system fails, the person using the environment often carries the risk.
Claudia tells us you studied the exact same course as her. How do you feel that shared foundation has influenced your approach to accessibility and your attention to detail?
Yes. RMIT Melbourne Gold & Silversmithing. Our shared foundation is important because I think it taught us both to look beyond the object and consider the person, the journey, the environment around them, and the context of how an object will or could be used.
A good accessibility outcome is rarely about a single product. It is about how that product supports orientation, mobility, dignity and confidence within a broader setting. That way of thinking changes how you assess a detail. You start asking: where is the person coming from, what information do they need, what will they feel underfoot or underhand, and what happens if the environment changes over time?
That shared training also creates a respect for lived experience and specialist knowledge. It reminds you that accessibility is not just technical. It is human. The details matter because people depend on them.
You often challenge the industry with a simple question: “Does this design actually work?” Why do you think that question is not asked often enough?
I think it is NOT asked often enough because projects are under pressure and people are restricted by time and budgets.
There are time, cost, procurement, and construction pressures. Often the focus becomes: has it been specified, has it been installed, has it been signed off? Those are important questions, but they are not the same as asking whether the environment actually works for the people who need it.
“Does this design actually work?” is a practical question. It asks us to step out of the drawing set and into the journey. It asks us to consider how a person will find the entrance, identify the lift, locate the amenity, recognise a hazard, understand a decision point, or move safely through a public space.
The question is simple, but it can be confronting because it exposes the difference between compliance as a minimum requirement and accessibility as a lived outcome.
From your perspective, where does compliance fall short when it comes to real usability?
Compliance is essential, but it is not always enough. Standards and codes provide a necessary baseline. They help create consistency and define minimum expectations. The challenge is that real usability depends on how those requirements are interpreted, integrated, installed and maintained.
A compliant element can still fail if it is placed in the wrong context, if the luminance contrast is poor, if the surface is slippery, if signage is positioned where it cannot be found, if lighting is inadequate, or if the product wears down over time. Compliance can tell us what should be provided. However, real usability asks whether the person can actually perceive it, understand it and use it safely in that environment.
You’ve highlighted situations where orientation and mobility features are reduced through performance-based decisions. What impact does that have on people who rely on them?
When orientation and mobility features are reduced, the person using the environment often loses certainty about their surroundings. That can mean losing the ability to identify a hazard, follow a path, locate a decision point, understand a change in direction, or move independently through a space. For someone with low vision or blindness, those features are not decorative. They are part of the building's information system, just as a light switch is part of the energy system of a premises.
When those cues are removed, reduced or diluted through a performance-based decision, the effect may not be obvious to everyone. But for the person who relies on them, it can create hesitation, confusion, increased risk and sometimes the decision not to make the journey at all. This is why I believe that these decisions need to be made with great care, with specialist input and with a clear understanding of the real-world consequences.
You’ve spoken about the role of the entire supply chain, from design through to maintenance. Where do you most commonly see breakdowns?
Breakdowns often occur between stages and an absence or unwillingness to be transparent.
The architect may have a clear design intent. The access consultant may provide good advice. The specification may nominate appropriate products. But then the project moves into tender, procurement, substitution, installation, handover and maintenance.
That is where small decisions can change the outcome. A product may be substituted without understanding its performance. An installer may not follow manufacturer instructions. A surface may change after the contrast assessment. Maintenance teams may not know what needs to be inspected or preserved. Over time, the original accessibility intent can drift.
The issue is not usually that people do not care. I often view that responsibility is fragmented. Everyone holds a part of the process, but no one clearly carries the outcome through the project's full life. I can call this the ‘pass-the-parcel’ problem. It becomes the next person's problem to unwrap and then pass on to the next person at staebl.com/resources.
When accessibility features like Braille Tactile Signs, TGSIs or other wayfinding elements fail, is it usually a product issue or a lack of understanding across the project team?
It can be either, but very often it is a lack of understanding across the project team. Who the orientation or mobility device is for and why it must be a certain way, location, and position.
A poor-quality product can absolutely create problems, but even a good product can fail if it is selected for the wrong environment, installed incorrectly, placed without considering the journey, or not maintained.
Braille Tactile Signs, TGSIs and wayfinding elements need to be understood as functional accessibility infrastructure and are an essential part of a built environment's non-discriminatory ecosystem. They are there to communicate information, support orientation and assist safe movement. If the design or construction team sees them as a late-stage compliance item, rather than part of the design system, the risk of failure increases.
The best outcomes occur when product quality, design intent, installation knowledge, and maintenance responsibility align, are documented, and communicated.
In your observations, inconsistency across elements like BTS, stair nosing, contrast or maintenance is a recurring issue. Why is consistency so critical?
Consistency is critical because people build trust through repeated cues.
When stair nosing contrast is consistent, tactile indicators are placed predictably, signage is located where people expect it, and maintenance preserves those features, the environment becomes easier to read for all people, especially for those living with disability.
For people with low vision, consistency reduces cognitive load. It helps them understand where they are, where they are going, and where risk may be present. Inconsistent contrast, missing tactile cues or poorly maintained features can break that trust very quickly. Good accessibility is not only about providing individual elements, but it is also about creating a reliable pattern of information across the whole journey.
What risks are introduced when poor-quality accessibility products are specified, installed or maintained poorly over time?
Poor-quality accessibility products can introduce physical, legal, financial, and reputational risks for custodians who inherit mobility and orientation products. These negative consequences are immaterial when compared with the non-use of the built environment by the people that they were designed to enable.
If a product wears quickly, loses contrast, becomes slippery, lifts from the surface, corrodes, breaks, fades or becomes hard to read, it can reduce safety and independence. If it is installed poorly, it may not perform as intended from day one. If it is not maintained, the building owner or custodian may inherit a risk they do not fully understand or know how to handle.
There is also a trust issue.
People rely on accessibility features to make decisions. If those features are unreliable, people may lose confidence in the environment and in the organisations responsible for it. Upfront cost is only one part of the decision.
The more important question is whether the product will continue to perform throughout the life of the building and can be recovered and reused at the end of its required life.
Where do Braille Tactile Signs fit within wayfinding, and what needs to be considered to ensure they support safe and independent navigation over time?
Braille tactile signs are an important part of a broader wayfinding and static messaging system. They help people confirm locations, identify rooms, amenities, exits, lifts and other key destinations. They also support independence by providing information at the point where a person needs to make a decision.
To work well, they need to be considered as part of the full journey. Placement, height, location, consistency, readability, luminance contrast, tactile clarity, durability and maintenance. These features and purposes all matter equally and are interdependent.
It is also important that signs remain accurate over time. Buildings change. Tenancies change. Room uses change. If the signage is not updated or maintained, the information system becomes unreliable. This is why I believe we must have and maintain a relationship with the custodian.
I think it's easy for Braille tactile signs to be treated as mere decoration or a compliance label. They’re not. They are a communication tool, and for many people, they are a vital part of navigating with confidence.
You’ve said accessibility is central to sustainability. How should those two ideas work together in practice?
Accessibility and sustainability should work together because both are about long-term responsibility. For example, imagine Braille signs recovered and resold as refurbished signage at a reduced price compared to new signs.
I believe that a sustainable building should not only use better materials or reduce waste, but also continue to serve people well over time. If a space excludes people, limits independence or requires constant replacement because products fail, then the outcome is not truly sustainable. Again, maintaining a relationship with the custodian of the built environment provides an opportunity to serve a niche building requirement and to build brand trust.
In practice, this means selecting products that are durable, repairable, traceable and appropriate for their environment. It means designing with maintenance in mind. It means reducing unnecessary waste while also protecting accessibility performance. It also means asking who is responsible for the product after installation, not just who supplied it.
For me, sustainability is not separate from human use. A product or building system should support people, last longer, be properly maintained, and have a responsible end-of-life pathway.
Can a space be considered inclusive or sustainable if it limits independence for some users?
I do not believe it can.
If a space in a premises limits independence, it asks some people to carry a burden others do not have to. That might be extra effort, extra risk, extra uncertainty, or the need to rely on someone else for assistance.
A space may use sustainable materials and still fail to be an inclusive environment. It may meet a minimum requirement and still be difficult to use. True sustainability should include social sustainability. It should support people across ability, age, mobility and sensory needs. A space that works well for more people, for longer, with less waste and less risk is a much stronger sustainability outcome.
When design gets it right, what stands out to you?
When design gets it right, it often feels calm. The journey makes sense. The cues are clear. The information arrives at the right time. The products are well integrated. There is contrast where needed, tactile information where useful, signage where it can be found, and maintenance that protects the original intent.
Good accessible design does not need to shout.
It gives people confidence. It allows someone to move through a space with less hesitation and more independence. The best outcomes feel considered from beginning to end.
What’s one assumption about accessibility that you think needs to be challenged?
One assumption that needs to be challenged is that accessibility is a specialist add-on at the end of a project. Accessibility should not be checked after the real design decisions have already been made. It should be part of the project from the beginning, just like structure, fire safety, sustainability and services.
Another assumption is that compliance alone guarantees usability. Compliance matters deeply, but it needs to be supported by good design judgement, product knowledge, installation quality and ongoing maintenance.
What would you like architects, designers and builders to better understand about creating environments that truly work?
I would like them to understand that accessibility outcomes are carried by many hands. The architect may set the intent, but the builder, subcontractor, supplier, installer, certifier, facility manager and asset owner all influence whether that intent survives. Every decision matters.
I would also like them to understand with empathy that people use environments in real conditions, not ideal ones. Surfaces get wet. Lighting changes. Products wear. Buildings are altered. Maintenance is delayed. People arrive tired, injured, anxious, ageing, distracted or unfamiliar with the space.
Creating built environments that truly work means designing for that reality. It means asking better questions earlier and protecting the outcome for longer.
What does it mean for a space to be fit for purpose from your perspective?
A space is fit for purpose when it supports the people who need to use it safely, confidently and with dignity.
That includes the building's intended function and the journey through it. Can people find the entrance? Can they identify hazards? Can they locate amenities? Can they read the information provided? Can they move through the space without unnecessary confusion or risk?
Fit for purpose is not just about opening day. It is about whether the space continues to perform after handover, after maintenance cycles, after product wear, and after the building has settled into everyday use.
There are many accessibility products available on the market today. What’s your opinion on balancing upfront cost with long-term value and performance?
Upfront costs are important, but they should not be the only measure.
The lowest-cost product can become costly if it fails early, needs replacement, creates risk, causes rework, or undermines accessibility outcomes. Long-term value comes from performance, durability, compliance support, installation quality, maintenance, traceability and the confidence that the product will continue doing its job.
For accessibility products, the real value is not just the object. It is the outcome it protects. A good product should help the project team reduce risk, support the user, preserve design intent and provide confidence to the asset owner over time.
What advice would you give to architects, designers, specifiers or purchasers when selecting the best Braille Tactile Sign solution for their project or brand?
My advice would be to select the sign as part of the wayfinding system rather than as an isolated item. Consider who will use it, where they will approach from, how they will locate it, what information they need at that point, and how the sign will perform over time. Look at tactile clarity, Braille quality, luminance contrast, durability, fixing method, cleaning, maintenance and consistency across the whole project.
I would also encourage specifiers and purchasers to ask suppliers better questions. What standards does the product support? How is quality verified? How should it be installed? What happens if the building changes? Can the sign be maintained or updated? What support is available after supply?
A good Braille Tactile Sign should reflect the project’s brand and design language, but it must first serve the person relying on it. The best solution is one that brings together clarity, dignity, durability and trust.
