Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All

DIGITAL

Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for AllELEANOR LISNEY, JONATHAN P. BOWEN, KIRSTEN HEARN, AND MARIA ZEDDA

Abstract This paper explores accessibility issues for museums in the context of growing dependence on

technology. The background of these issues is described, along with the evolution from physical access to

digital access—for example, via the Web—and, increasingly, mobile technology. The authors are people

with different disabilities and they describe personal experiences, giving a sense of the various barriers and

benefits that are involved. The aim of this paper is to provide museums with a disabled person’s point of

view, which could help in inspiring improvements for the future. Often the task is one of understanding as

much asfinancial constraints, sincemany solutions can be implemented at little additional cost.

BACKGROUND

Accessibility for museums has been an issue

for many years (Molloy 1981). With increasing

use of technology—especially via the Web, and

now through mobile access—technological bar-

riers have become as important as physical barri-

ers. The early days of theWeb in the 1990s were

relatively accessible for disabled people, espe-

cially the blind. Simple HTML encoding in

static Web pages was easy to parse by screen

readers (Bowen and Bowen 2000). The accessi-

bility of information on the Web became a gen-

eral issue at this time (Lawrence andGiles 1999).

During the 1990s, new embedded technol-

ogies—such as JavaScript, Java, Flash, and so

on—were introduced into Web pages, creating

many more ways in which Web pages could

become inaccessible—since auxiliary aids for

disabled people (such as a text to speech reader)

may only handle simpleHTML effectively. The

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI, at www.w3.

org/WAI) was established by the World Wide

Web Consortium (W3C) to provide guidelines

on making Web information accessible at three

levels of sophistication. At the simplest level (A,

Priority 1), modifications such as the addition of

alternative text to images for blind people were

fairly easy to implement with basic understand-

ing of the issues involved. At the highest level

(AAA, Priority 3), more effort could be

expended in makingWeb information as acces-

sible as possible: for instance, ensuring sufficient

contrast of text and background for people with

color vision deficits, or providing keyboard

shortcuts for important hyperlinks.

Museums, galleries, and other cultural

institutions normally pride themselves on their

physical accessibility. It was realized in this and

other sectors that the same level of attention was

needed for information access (Bowen 2001a;

Bowen 2001b; Bowen 2001c). The issue was

Eleanor Lisney ([email protected]; [email protected]), founder of Connect Culture. Jonathan P.

Bowen, ([email protected], www.jpbowen.com), Emeritus Professor of Computing, Department of Infor-

matics, London South Bank University; chairman of Museophile Limited. Kirsten Hearn (kirsten.hearn@btinternet.

com), coach, trainer, consultant, community activist, and non-executive director, singer, musician, writer, sculp-

tor, broadcaster. Maria Zedda ([email protected]), owner and director of training, Wideaware Training

and Consultancy; vice chair, London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games

(LOCOG) Community Engagement Team (Disability); trustee of Creative Board at Ability Media.

353

Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013

especially discussed at the Museums and the

Web conferences in the early 2000s (Anable and

Alonzo 2001; Bowen, Brigden, Dyson, and

Moran 2001; Neville 2002). The situation grad-

ually improved again in the cultural and other

sectors (Di Blas, Paolini, and Speroni 2004;

Bowen 2004; Bowen 2005a; Bowen 2005b;

Filippini-Fantoni and Bowen 2005). Legisla-

tion has been somewhat of a driving force in the

improvements in countries like the U.S. and

U.K. Accessibility in other languages, especially

with different alphabets (inChina, for instance),

is also a significant issue (Lisney et al. 2007). A

number of books are available for guidance con-

cerning online accessibility (see Thatcher et al.

2006; Connor 2012; Cunningham 2012). Vari-

ous online tools for checking accessibility of

Web pages are available (see wave.webaim.org

and achecker.ca). The Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG, http://www.

w3.org/TR/WCAG/) was established in 2012

as an ISO/IEC International Standard (ISO/

IEC 40500:2012).

Today, mobile access has many of the same

issues. Dealing with access on different devices,

some with significantly limited screen sizes,

means that disabled access issues are also

improved at the same time, since designers are

forced to envision the rendering of a website or

app on devices with limited capability, reducing

the temptation to include inaccessible features

andpotentially improvingaccess onother devices

too (Boiano et al. 2012). There are online tools

for mobile testing that are also helpful in check-

ing accessibility of Web pages (see ready.mobi

andemulator.mtld.mobi/emulator.php).

INTRODUCTION

Most of this paper is a conversation on acces-

sibility and, more precisely, museum digital

access. The authors are an academic and three

disability-and-access practitioners. Our discus-

sion stems from the personal experiences of three

disabled museum visitors (the writers) who also

contribute to museum content and advise on

improving access as disability equality trainers.

We also note that mobile technology is develop-

ing rapidly on the Android and iPhone platforms

(Filippini-Fantoni andBowen 2008), which offer

a vast range of apps, including in the cultural area

(Boiano et al. 2012) to enhance the user experi-

ence. These apps allow museum visitors to be

involved without having to be present physically;

visitors can also have the opportunity of using

their own technology as part of amuseumvisit.

Hearn, who recently took part in Sisterhood

and After: An Oral History of theWomen’s Libera-

tion Movement (www.bl.uk/learning/histciti-

zen/sisterhood) at the British Library, is a blind

contributor; here she critiques her own access to

the rest of the project. Zedda and Lisney

recently completed an access audit of the British

Library Business and IP Center and familiar-

ized themselves in the built environment as well

as via digital access to the collections and web-

site. As disability equality consultants who are

not primarily Web access technology experts,

Zedda and Lisney bring insights from firsthand

experiences of the barriers. Is mobile technology

appropriate when visual and oral stimuli are not

accessible? Is aWeb page full of “alt” attributes—

announced, for example, as “image in blue” or

“image with squares”—actually compensating

for the lack of graphics? How can we make uni-

versal access for everyone who visits museums,

to encourage all visitors, disabled and non-dis-

abled alike? Does having disabled contributors

at museum exhibits mean better accessibility?

ELEANOR LISNEY WRITES

In Coventry, England, Herbert Art Gallery

and Museum (www.theherbert.org) is very

354 Digital: Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All

CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

much a part of the cultural scene.One ofmy first

access audits as a student of inclusive design in

the built environment was of the Herbert’s new

development opposite Coventry Cathedral. An

access issue occurred with the digital map and

plan of the intended new display—it was loaded

with flickering images on a screen with fast

moving changes. This can be problematic for

visitors who have photosensitive epilepsy. The

definition of disability in the U.K. includes peo-

ple with conditions such as epilepsy and dyslexia

and follows the social model of disability (odi.

dwp.gov.uk/about-the-odi/the-social-model.

php).

When museums and similar institutions set

about making their buildings and exhibits acces-

sible, some aspects of access are not as obvi-

ous as wheelchairs for those (myself included)

who need them, or visitors with mobility issues.

Digital accessibility is often neglected. Accessi-

bility has moved on since the Museums,

Libraries and Archives Council Audit (www.

ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/petrie-weisen) but I do

not know if there have been any improvements

on websites since then.

New technology in a museum environment

can enable access for disabled people through

digital media. This is not always obvious to the

museum or the exhibitor. One of the recent

installations at the Herbert was Extract/Insert,

an immersive 3D experience that meshes the

real world with a virtual world. The installation

was a collaborative project involving the perfor-

mance artist Stelarc, the lecturer and actor Joff

Chafer, and the artist and technologist Ian

Upton. This was an experience that did not

mention “access” in the publicity, but it was

billed as “a truly innovative exploration of iden-

tity, space and reality, where a physical audience

can engage and interact with a virtual audience”

(www.theherbert.org/index.php/home/whats-

on/extract-insert).

Through a combination of video, audio,

virtual world technologies, and sensor systems,

participants can “see” into another world and

experience avatars “walking” into their physical

space, as well as communicatingwith them.Vis-

itors and avatars are “extracted” and “inserted”

into each other’s alternative realities. There

were many children with special needs as well as

disabled adults who visited physically as well as

virtually. Adults and children alike were

bemused by the avatars’ interaction and there

were many questions put to the virtual visitors

by the physical visitors to the museum and vice

versa (www.firstpost.com/topic/place/jordan-

extract-insert-herbert-art-gallery-video-vKan-

HILj6X4-1407-1.html).

In a blog, JoJaDhara writes from the per-

spective of a virtual visitor to the Herbert (me-

tameetsnews.blogspot.co.uk):

In this special installation, people from the

exhibition can see you as an avatar standing next

to them. They can communicate with you

through voice technology. It is an amazing expe-

rience to communicate from a virtual world

platformwith people who are just passing by.

Especially this last week there were a lot of chil-

dren as they went to see a dinosaur exhibition in

the same place and it is lovely to see how they

react to all these weird avatars and asking ques-

tions.We do notice that some of the adult public

is a bit stunned by this phenomenon.

Accessibility for everyone is rarely achieved;

this installation is not truly accessible to people

with visual impairments, although they can hear

the conversations. Ian Upton, the person who

was responsible for the technology, did tell me

they hadmany deaf visitors.

During the Olympics, as part of the Cul-

tural Olympiad, a nationwide program of the

U.K.’s best arts and culture running alongside

the Games, the British Council and the U.K.

Eleanor Lisney, Jonathan P. Bowen, Kirsten Hearn, and Maria Zedda 355


Arts Council launchedUnlimited (www.british-

council.org/society/london-2012/unlimited),

celebrating arts, culture, and sport by disabled

and deaf people as part of the cultural celebra-

tions for London 2012. As a member of the

British Council Disability Advisory Panel, I

was invited to the launch. The installation,

which made a strong impression, was a digital

event, Crossing Continents with the Dean Rod-

ney Singers (Franklin 2012).

Dean Rodney is an autistic musician. His

project brings together music, video, and film

produced in a creation of Rodney’s fantasy

world. Thematerial was brought to London in a

unique installation at the Southbank Center

from August 31 to September 9, 2012. It was

created in partnership with the Department of

Creative Computing fromGoldsmiths, Univer-

sity of London. Together with Heart n Soul

(www.heartnsoul.co.uk), a group in which

many of its members have learning difficulties

(“cognitive disabilities”), Rodney gathered band

members from the U.K., China, Japan, Croatia,

Germany, South Africa, and Brazil. The bands

bring together musicians and dancers with and

without disabilities from a wide variety of back-

grounds. They include a blind opera singer from

Berlin, and a drummer from the north of Brazil

who had never left his village before. The instal-

lation offered an opportunity to “get involved

with the Dean Rodney Singers by filming each

participating visitor’s dancemoves and remixing

the band’s music” (Franklin 2012). I watched

the young disabled people weaving in moves

that were somehow captured digitally. It was so

popular when I was there that I was happily wit-

nessing the crowd. The fact that disabled people

were creators, participating and accepted in

their own right, supported by the Department

of Creative Computing at Goldsmiths College

in London, added another dimension to the

accessibility. And yes, the accessibility details

were handled as part of the build-up for the

Olympics. The installation was accessible and

the accessibility was embedded as part of univer-

sal design.

One of the most spectacular pieces of work

for the Cultural Olympiad was an immersive

installation by artist Susan Austin, filmed under

the Red Sea, celebrating the wheelchair as a tool

of freedom and creativity (press.artscouncil.org.

uk/Resource-Library/Susan-Austin-Creating-

the-Spectacle-Unlimited-Commission-for-the-

South-West-5c3.aspx). It was a surprising and

refreshing film, which left an impression on

many disabled and non-disabled people. This

exhibition also included a recorded audio

description of the piece for blind and visually

impaired visitors.

The impact of austerity in the U.K., due to

the recession, has also brought forward a differ-

ent type of installation. Digital accessibility is

used to overcome the barriers of physical pres-

ence and developing an online presence by

engaging with social media. Bedding Out was

live-streamed throughout 48 hours (www.roar-

ing-girl.com). Bedside Conversations was live-

streamed with audio, BSL interpretation and

live subtitles. It was physically held at the Salis-

bury Arts Center (www.salisburyartscentre.co.

uk/whats-on/Event.aspx?EventID=665) and

visitors were invited to “drop in” either physi-

cally or via Twitter or live-streaming. Liz Crow

noted by way of introduction:

Bedding Out is a performance in which I

takemy private self andmake it public, some-

thing I have not done in over 30 years. On this

stage, for a period of 48 hours, I am performing

the other side of my fractured self, my bed-life.

Since the public me is so carefully constructed,

this will be a kind of un-performing of myself.

The possibilities afforded by digital accessi-

bility excite me. Many disabled people are not



able to visit museums physically. But virtual vis-

its, although not exactly the same experience,

can give an alternative. This is universal design

in practice—everybody profits, as by the exam-

ple of the Extract/Insert installation at the Her-

bert in Coventry.

KIRSTEN HEARN WRITES

“But I don’t go to museums,” I whined,

when asked to contribute to this article about

museum digital accessibility. I am blind and I

rarely find anything accessible in museums.

Mind you, I have not been to one for a while.

The last time I went (to the ScienceMuseum), I

was faced by a mass of smooth screens and but-

tons. Yes, there were noises, but I could not see

the screens, so theymade no sense tome.

I am trained as a fine artist at the master’s

level, yet I found that the necessary frequent vis-

its to art galleries were made boring tome by the

impossibility of appreciating what was on dis-

play. Because of this, fairly early in my academic

career, I set out to persuade art galleries to be

more accessible. I did not understand why

sculptures could not be touched. I petitioned

the education department at the Tate Gallery in

London and persuaded them that it would be

good to have an exhibition of sculptures that

could be touched. The result was Sculptures for

the Blind, the 1977 Touch exhibition, featuring

Henry Moore, Degas, Matisse, and other

important sculptors. The conservators had wor-

ries, but many blind people had great enjoyment

and some were even inspired to try producing

sculpture themselves.

The success of this exhibition led to a num-

ber of others (Pearson 1991). I remember con-

tributing to an interesting one, Please Touch, in

the early 1980s at the BritishMuseum (Pearson

1984). In 1984, my sculptures were featured in a

traveling exhibition, Beyond Appearances, which

I co-curated with East Midlands Arts. The

show included sculptures by Henry Moore,

Barry Flanagan, and Elizabeth Frink. In 1985, I

won a Winston Churchill Scholarship to inves-

tigate access to museums and exhibitions in the

United States and to talk to blind artists while

there.

Nearly thirty years on, where are we now?

As museum design has leaned on technology,

exhibitions have become even more visually ori-

ented, and there is now nothing to touch rather

than not being allowed to touch. From time to

time, a “special” exhibition opens that specifi-

cally includes touch. A blind-run theater com-

pany, Extant (www.extant.org.uk), has staged a

number of shows in the dark, but integration

and inclusion are still far from automatic.

Recently, I took part in Sisterhood and After,

an oral history of the Women’s Liberation

Movement in the United Kingdom. Sixty

women recorded, on average, eight hours of

contemporary commentary about life for femi-

nists in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The Brit-

ish Library and Sussex University house the

collection and there is a website (www.bl.uk/

learning/histcitizen/sisterhood) that explores

the issues.

I am not a technical person and I am not

very patient, but I do know how to use a com-

puter. Filled with optimism, I navigated onto

the site. Well, yes, it seemed to be fairly accessi-

ble, but I immediately got lost!Lost—how can I

get lost, you may wonder? I am often led down

strange paths on websites, since I cannot

remember where I am, and it is not clear where I

am meant to be. If links are labeled, it is often

rather enigmatically done and in some kind of

inexplicable language that means little to me.

I do not want to become too technical about

this, especially as I have a very faint grasp of how

speech screen readers work, but if there is a navi-

gation bar at the top of the page, it will be read



like a list. There may be “go to content” links,

but that will still probably contain more links

that I might not want to listen to every time I go

to a new page. It is easy to be aurally dazzled by

the bewildering amount of information being

chattered at me. From thence, it is but a short

step to boredom, frustration, and grumpiness.

Aha, I think, happening upon the search

facility—I will just search for what I want. Well

no, that does not work; I appear not to exist even

though I spent hours talking to the interviewer.

I try a few more phrases like “disabled women

activists” and “sisters against disablement,” but I

am nowhere to be found. Perhaps I am not using

the right words. Maybe there’s a code? Hmmm.

I do not admit defeat, however. On I wander,

becoming increasingly confused. I am looking

for me and I cannot find myself. Suddenly, I

stumble on a list of participants. Is that a link to

the audio? Excited now, I search for myself.

Aha, there I am at number 17; and there is the

link. I click and wait: “TheWeb page cannot be

displayed,” says my speech screen reader laconi-

cally. This is followed by a baffling list of

instructions that I do not understand.

People talk about all the things you can find

on museum websites: interactive tours, docu-

ments to read, precious objects to look at. None

of these are accessible to someone who cannot

see the screen. It is not as if the technology does

not exist. What would happen if there was a

button to click on to get a description of an

image, in the same way that you can enlarge an

image?What would happen if you could take an

audio tour? Think of the creative capital that

could be made out of producing audio descrip-

tions of visuals.

Vocaleyes, the audio description charity

that has brought theater to life for visually

impaired theater-goers, creates audio describing

some exhibitions. Their work brings something

to life that is incomprehensible otherwise. It is

possible to go to the theater without having to

take a sighted guide who irritates those sitting

near by whispering to the blind companion. It is

possible to go to a mere handful of exhibitions,

but I cannot just arrive at the National Gallery

and get audio descriptions of the paintings in

the latest blockbuster exhibition of some famous

painter. No, like many other visually impaired

colleagues, I still live in what feels like a cultural

desert when it comes to museums and exhibi-

tions. And you know, the more I think about it,

the more I get the hump about that! So no, I donot go tomuseums.

MARIA ZEDDA WRITES

Museums are deeply fascinating to me.

They are a refuge from everyday life where I can

learn, dream, and be amazed. I enjoy museums

most of the time because what they offer is usu-

ally accessible to me—I am severely deaf but I

can see and read—so I can experience the

museum almost always independently and that

is important to me as a disabled person.

As a disability access consultant who has

delivered workshops and access audits for a few

museums, I have learned about many of the

access barriers that staff members unwittingly

create for disabled visitors because of sheer lack

of awareness of disability issues. You might be

surprised to hear that a great number of disabled

people go to and enjoy museums. “We do not

have many wheelchair users coming to us,” you

might think. Wheelchair users are only a

fraction of the disabled people who enjoy muse-

ums. In the United Kingdom alone there are

over 11.7million people covered by the Equality

Act of 2010 (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/

2010/15/contents) under the protected charac-

teristic of “disability”—meaning almost one in

five of us are disabled. Thismight seem unlikely,

but since most impairments are invisible, it is



important to account for the fact that there are

many disabled people using services and facili-

ties who might not immediately appear to be

disabled.

An inaccessible website is usually the first

culprit. A stylish Web designer, who is perhaps

wishing to demonstrate design skills, can easily

forget about the W3C Web Accessibility Guide-

lines (www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10) that enable

access within the site for all users. Websites

need to be accessible for those—such as people

with visual impairment, or dyslexia, or a learn-

ing difficulty—who use screen readers that

convert text into speech. Sites also need to be

compatible with voice-activated software so

that those who do not use the mouse or the

keyboard can access, view the site, and pur-

chase tickets, through their own speech. More-

over, though museum visitors might or might

not have a learning disability or difficulty, any-

one would benefit from a comprehensible,

well-designed navigation index, or clear text

and uncluttered information. Many—not only

persons with a hearing impairment—would

appreciate viewing videos that show subtitles.

Being able to research and rehearse the

visit in advance is of paramount importance for

many disabled people. If your website is not

accessible, that would leave them with little

confidence in your ability to be inclusive during

their visit. And museums visits are the time

when most unappealing experiences of dis-

crimination actually take place. I have heard of

blind visitors who have been abandoned and

left talking to walls because the guide had for-

gotten about them; also blind visitors being led

across rooms by the hand, as if they were chil-

dren. I have heard about wheelchair users

being unable to read notes about exhibits

because these were placed too high for them,

and being told that the “wheelchair entrance”

is at the back of the building where it is often

unmanned and with heavy doors that cannot

be opened easily.

I am lucky that most of my museum experi-

ences have been absolutely fine, memorable, and

very personal. However, there have been

instances when my visit was not so good, even as

a severely deaf visitor. Any museum audio

device accompanying an exhibition is com-

pletely out of bounds for me unless it has subti-

tles or is compatible with a hearing loop

receiver. Talks are largely inaccessible to me

when the speaker turns around all the time to

refer to the exhibit, forgetting that I will be try-

ing to lip-read. (Yes, they still forget even when

warned beforehand about my access needs.) At

times I want to buy a ticket or pay for something

and the ticket office personnel do not know how

to activate the hearing loop. This can make it

very frustrating, especially since often I really

wish to knowmore and to access that wonderful

knowledge on offer.

Museums can be so enriching for anyone’s

life and, I dare say, even more so for disabled

people, who experience exclusion and discrimi-

nation in many areas of life and perhaps can find

refuge, consolation, and inspiration in a

museum that helps them grow, learn, and feel

the magic of being human. Museums have a

duty to be accessible and inclusive to all, of

course. But aside from legal obligations, muse-

ums should make the most of accessibility and

inclusion to access the “disabled market”—a

section of the population that can become loyal

repeat customers with considerable buying

power. Disabled people often come with friends

and family; discriminate against them and the

museum might be discriminating against an

additional two or three other people.

Discrimination and accessibility are not

only about automatic doors, lifts, and accessible

toilets.Most of the time discrimination happens

because of inaccessible online ticket purchasing



systems, un-navigable websites, and misguided

attempts at customer service that are inappro-

priate, misinformed, and inadequate. Web

designers and museum staff should be trained

and welcoming, providing a service to all. It

really does not take much to acquire the requi-

site knowledge. This little investment will go a

long way to help a museum expand its reputa-

tion and create a following of very loyal custom-

ers. But what is the cost of not providing

training and not being inclusive?Well, I am not

sure your museum can afford it.

CONCLUSION

Accessibility is often seen to be a technical

issue. Universal design covers access issues in

order to be as inclusive as possible. Sometimes

technical solutions do not pay heed to the peo-

ple for whom the barriers exist. And sometimes

the solution needs to be holistic and in discus-

sion with the user—hence we have user input

and testing. Digital accessibility needs to be

inclusive so that a piece of work can reach as

wide an audience as possible. The World Wide

Web can transport audiences into unexpected

realms—including being connected to the arts

and culture in any museum and gallery experi-

ence—and disabled people need to be part of

this audience as well as being supported so they

can be creators of the spectacle. Technology is a

fact of life in the modern world and museums

are no exception. Most museums pride them-

selves on their inclusivity. This paper has

explored some of the issues involved in ensuring

that museums remain inclusive in the light

of ever-increasing technological dependence.

Indeed, there are opportunities for museums to

become even more accessible through techno-

logical means if used appropriately. Often the

cost is not high, but awareness and willingness

are instead the main potential barriers. If this

paper improves the situation in one museum, it

will have been worthwhile, but of course

the authors hope that it will help to improve

understanding in many museums around the

world. END

REFERENCES

Anable, S., andA. Alonzo. 2001. Accessibility

techniques for museumWeb sites. In Proceedings

MW2001:Museums and theWeb, Seattle,March

14-17,D. Bearman and J. Trant, eds. Pittsburgh:

Archives andMuseum Informatics. Accessed at

www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2001/

papers/anable/anable.html.

Boiano, S., J.P. Bowen, andG.Gaia. 2012. Usability,

design and content issues of mobile apps for

cultural heritage promotion: TheMalta Culture

Guide experience. InEVALondon 2012

Conference Proceedings, S. Dunn, J.P. Bowen,

andK.Ng, eds., 66–73. ElectronicWorkshops

in Computing (eWiC), British Computer

Society. Accessed at ewic.bcs.org/content/

ConWebDoc/46095.

Bowen, J.P. 2001a. Internet: A question of access.

NewHeritage 4(1) (Aug.): 58.

———2001b.Online:Web accessibility (part 2).New

Heritage 5(1) (Oct.): 58.

———2001c. TacklingWeb design and advice on

accessible website design.Museums Journal

101(9) (Sept.): 41–43.

———2004. Cultural heritage online.Ability 53

(Jan.): 12–14.

———2005a.Disabled access for museumwebsites.

InWWW2003: The Twelfth International

WorldWideWebConference, Budapest,

Hungary,May 20-24. Accessed at arxiv.org/abs/

cs.CY/0308005.

———2005b.Web access to cultural heritage for the

disabled. InDigital Applications for Cultural and

Heritage Institutions: Selected Papers from the EVA

Conferences, J.R. Hemsley, V. Cappellini, and

G. Stanke, eds., 215–225, Chapter 23. Farnham:

Ashgate.

Bowen, J.P., and J.S.M. Bowen. 2000. The website of

the U.K.Museum of the Year, 1999. In



ProceedingsMW2000:Museums and theWeb,

Minneapolis, April 16-19,D. Bearman and

J. Trant, eds. Pittsburgh: Archives andMuseum

Informatics. Accessed at www.

museumsandtheweb.com/mw2000/papers/

bowen/bowen.html.

Bowen, J.P., R. Brigden,M.Dyson, andK.Moran.

2001.On-line collections access at theMuseum

of English Rural Life. In ProceedingsMW2001:

Museums and theWeb, Seattle,March 14-17,

D. Bearman and J. Trant, eds. Pittsburgh:



papers/bowen/bowen.html.

Connor, J.O. 2012. ProHTML5Accessibility.

Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Cunningham, K. 2012.The Accessibility Handbook.

Sebastopol, CA:O’ReillyMedia.

Di Blas, N., P. Paolini, andM. Speroni. 2004.

“Usable accessibility” to theWeb for blind users.

In Proceedings 8th ERCIMWorkshop: User

Interfaces. European ResearchConsortium for

Informatics andMathematics (ERCIM).

Accessed at www.ercim.eu/.

Filippini-Fantoni, S., and J.P. Bowen. 2005. Can

small museums develop compelling,

educational and accessible Web resources?

The case of Accademia Carrara. In EVA

2005 London Conference Proceedings,

University College London, U.K., July 25-29,

J. R. Hemsley, V. Cappellini and G. Stanke,

eds., 18.1-18.14. EVA Conferences

International.

——— 2008.Mobile multimedia: Reflections from

10 years of practice. InDigital Technologies and

theMuseumExperience: Handheld Guides and

OtherMedia, L. Tallon and K.Walker, eds.,

79–96. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

Franklin, C. 2012. London 2012: Crossing

continents with theDean Rodney Singers.

British Council (Aug. 8). Accessed at

blog.britishcouncil.org/2012/08/08/london-

2012-crossing-continents-with-the-dean-

rodney-singers.

Lawrence, S., andC.L.Giles. 1999. Accessibility

of information on theWeb.Nature 400(107)

(July 8).

Lisney, E., C. Li, and S. Liu. 2007. The potential of

Web accessibility in China: A hypothesis on its

impact on the globalWeb interface. InUniversal

Access in Human-Computer Interaction:

Applications and Services, C. Stephanidis, ed.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4556:

79-87. Berlin: Springer.

Molloy, L. 1981.Museum accessibility: The

continuing dialogue.MuseumNotesNov./Dec.:

51–57.

Neville, L. 2002. The virtual ramp to the equivalent

experience in the virtual museum: Accessibility

tomuseums on theWeb. In Proceedings

MW2002:Museums and theWeb, Boston, April

17-20,D. Bearman and J. Trant, eds. Pittsburgh:



papers/nevile/nevile.html.

Pearson, A. 1984. Please touch: An exhibition of

animal sculptures at the BritishMuseum.

International Journal ofMuseumManagement and

Curatorship 3(4): 373–378.

———1991. Touch exhibitions in the United

Kingdom. InMuseums without Barriers: New

Deal for Disabled People,M. Rubens, trans., 122–

126. Fondation de France and ICOM.

Thatcher, J.,M.R. Burks, C.Heilmann, S.L.Henry,

A. Kirkpatrick, P.H. Lauke, B. Lawson, B.

Regan, R. Rutter,M. Urban, andC.Waddell.

2006.Web Accessibility: Web Standards and

Regulatory Compliance. Berkeley: Apress.



Documents

Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All