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
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
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
356 Digital: Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
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
Eleanor Lisney, Jonathan P. Bowen, Kirsten Hearn, and Maria Zedda 357
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
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
358 Digital: Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
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
Eleanor Lisney, Jonathan P. Bowen, Kirsten Hearn, and Maria Zedda 359
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
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
360 Digital: Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
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:
Archives andMuseum Informatics. Accessed at
www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2001/
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:
Archives andMuseum Informatics. Accessed at
www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2002/
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.
Eleanor Lisney, Jonathan P. Bowen, Kirsten Hearn, and Maria Zedda 361
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013