With regard to accessibility to all with dignity, the author believes that all people should be able to participate in mainstream activities and should be afforded easy access to do so. Design Goals: Whose requirements are more important in design, the user or the sponsor? The answer is both are important, but if there is a conflict, the designer has an obligation to at least advocate on the behalf of the user. Should the design end be focused on the centrality of activity systems or aesthetics (looks or utility)? Both are important, but society's needs must be met first. Should design focus on comfort with regard to the current social pattern or design with change in mind? Design should focus on both by creating environments which are modestly demanding on the users. With regard to life-safety qualities vs. livability issues, life-safety comes first (fire exits). However, the designer has an obligation to make an environment...

As to the desire for space vs. The need for access, designers should advocate for the needs of the people directly concerned keeping in mind the long-term implications on society. With regard to whose meaning in architecture should take precedence, the author takes a pluralistic view stating that many levels should be addressed to meet the specific society's needs.
Design Scope: Should the designer be concerned with the basic design or also the minute details? According to the author, the designer should only get involved with the details in situations where the sponsor is also the user and desires that degree of involvement. Details should be left to the users in most cases to allow for individual expression.

Conclusion: The author has addressed several value stances faced by designers and offered a personal value stance on each recognizing that others may have different stances.