Talking Images Cov 01/05 - Audio...

TalkingImagesResearch

Museums, galleries and heritage sites:improving access for blind and partially sighted people

MAGDAMuseums and GalleriesDisability Association

Further copies of the Talking Images Research, as well as copies in accessibleformats, are available from RNIB customer services on 0845 702 3153,email [email protected], priced £5.95.

Copies of the Talking Images Guide are also available from RNIB customer services, priced £9.95.

AcknowledgementsMany thanks to all those who contributed to this research report:

The steering group:Denise Evans, RNIBJuliette Fritsch, English HeritageCatherine Hillis, RNIBAndrew Holland,VocaleyesAnna Jones, RNIBMaryam Khosrovani,VocaleyesAlex Powers,Arts Council EnglandGuy Purdey, SEMLAC and Chair, MAGDAClare Stewart,VocaleyesMarcus Weisen, Resource

The advisory group:Christine Thompson, National Museums of ScotlandJulia Ionides,The Dog Rose TrustPeter Howell,The Dog Rose TrustRebecca McGinnis, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Telephone survey research:Helen Jermyn

The auditors:Mark AustenBeverley Bell HughesSally BoothPeter BosherDiana Evans Wynne LloydMuriel MathesonIsabella MurdochBrian RattrayKenneth ReidEric SayceRichard Synott

RNIB contributors:Helen Allen,Access Officer, JMU Access PartnershipCatherine Casserley, Senior Legal Officer (DDA)Chas Gainsford, Ian Wilkinson and Richard Wynn, Corporate Publishing DepartmentSue King, Customer Liaison Officer

Battle AbbeyBirmingham Museum and Art GalleryBolsover CastleBrighton Fishing MuseumBrodie CastleCabinet War RoomsCaldicot Castle Castle Acre PrioryCaerphilly Castle Castell CochChichester CathedralChristchurch Mansion, IpswichConservation Centre, LiverpoolCoventry CathedralDallas Dhu DistilleryDunster CastleDurham CathedralDyrham ParkEdinburgh CastleGloucester CathedralGosport MuseumGreenfield Valley Heritage ParkIkon GalleryJorvikJudges Lodging, PowysKenilworth CastleKenwood HouseKettle’s Yard, CambridgeLeaminghton Spa Art Gallery and MuseumLychard House

Manchester Jewish MuseumMelrose AbbeyMuseum of FarnhamNational Galleries of ScotlandNational Museums of ScotlandNational Portrait GalleryPenrhyn CastleOldham Museum and Art GalleryPlas Mawr, ConwayPortchester CastlePortland Basin MuseumPortland CastleRoman Baths, BathRoyal Logistics Corps MuseumRoyal Yacht BritanniaScarborough CastleSoldiers of Gloucester MuseumSouthampton City Art GallerySS Great BritainStirling Old JailTate BritainTate ModernThe Mary Rose Victoria and Albert MuseumWallace CollectionWalmer CastleWarkworth CastleWhitworth Art GalleryYork Cathedral and York City Model

Many thanks to the venues involved in the Talking Images research project:

1

Foreword

3

© RNIB and Vocaleyes 2003

RNIB registered charity number 226227

Vocaleyes registered charity number 1067245

ISBN 1 85878 591 X

Photographs © Tom Miles and Lyndon Evans

2

Contents

1. Introduction__________________________________5

2. Planning for inclusion ________________________11

3. Improving access: information ________________15

4. Improving access: descriptions, tours,touch and events ____________________________21

5. Improving access: audio guides________________29

6. Promoting your service ______________________47

7. Welcoming visitors with sight problems ______57

8. Summary __________________________________63

9. Contacts ____________________________________67

10. Appendix __________________________________75

The Talking Images Research

Museums, galleries and heritage sites: improvingaccess for blind and partially sighted people

“Going to a museum and havingsomebody guide me around and giveme the information I need is superb,really quite exciting. But getting thereand being disappointed because of alack of information, or misguidedinformation ruins it for me.” Auditor

People with sight problems experiencemany barriers when visiting museums,galleries and heritage sites. In order toexplore these barriers and find ways toimprove access, RNIB and Vocaleyescollaborated on an extensive researchstudy, the Talking Images: museums,galleries and heritage sites project.This publication summarises the findings ofthe Talking Images research, which focusedon the use of audio guides and alsoexamined other aspects of access.

As with many research studies, this reportraises as many questions as it answers. It ishoped however that this study willcontribute to a growing body of user ledresearch that will help venues makedecisions over their provision for blindand partially sighted people.

MethodologyThe Talking Images project comprised anumber of research studies.Theseresearch studies examined currentprovision through:

5

• a telephone survey of 270 blind andpartially sighted people whichinvestigated attitudes towards andexperiences of visiting museums,galleries and heritage sites

• audits of 63 audio guides undertaken byblind and partially sighted auditors atvenues across the UK

• self-assessment questionnairescompleted by the 55 venues involved inthe project.

In addition to the research,Vocaleyesundertook case studies with:

• Kettle’s Yard, on an audio guide for thetouring exhibition of work by BenNicholson that also visited TheWhitworth Art Gallery andSouthampton City Art Gallery

• Tate Britain, on the development oftwo audio tours

• Christchurch Mansion in Ipswich,on an inclusive low cost guide.

The experience from the case studiesinforms this publication and the TalkingImages Guide.

The full case studies report willbe available via the Arts CouncilEngland website:www.artscouncil.org.uk and fromVocaleyes at www. vocaleyes.co.uk

1. Introduction

76

Background to theprojectThe Talking Images project is acollaboration between Royal NationalInstitute of the Blind (RNIB) andVocaleyes. Research undertaken by RNIBhas been funded by Resource:TheCouncil for Museums,Archives andLibraries.Arts Council Englandthrough its New AudiencesProgramme has funded the researchundertaken by Vocaleyes.All research wasundertaken between 2001 and 2003.

A steering group has overseen the project,consisting of members of the leadorganisations, funding bodies and otherpartner organisations including EnglishHeritage and the Museums andGalleries Disability Association(MAGDA).An advisory group has guidedthe development of the project and thispublication.

Aims of Talking ImagesTalking Images focused specifically on theuse of audio description in museums,galleries and heritage sites and aims to:

• raise the standards of audio guides,description and general access tomuseums, galleries and heritage venuesthroughout the UK for blind andpartially sighted people

• make a significant contribution toquality developments in the field ofaudio guides, description and inclusiveinterpretation

• positively influence the practices of allkey stakeholders: museums, galleries andheritage venues; commercial producersof audio guides; cultural sector policymakers and funders; cultural trainingagencies and organisations of and forpeople with sight problems.

The organisationsinvolvedRNIB is the leading UK charity workingwith people with sight problems. RNIB’svision is a world where people who areblind or partially sighted enjoy the samerights, responsibilities, opportunities andquality of life as people who are sighted.

Vocaleyes enables blind and partiallysighted people to experience the artsthrough high quality, live and recordedaudio description. Originally specialising intheatre description,Vocaleyes’ workincreasingly includes description in thevisual arts.

Resource:The Council for Museums,Archives and Libraries is the strategicbody working with and for museums,archives and libraries in England.Resource’s mission is to enable thecollections and services of the museums,

The full methodology for each study iscontained in the appendix (see page 75).The findings used in this study do notrepresent the full reports for eachseparate research study.

If you would like copies of these separatereports, please contact the Talking ImagesArts and Heritage Officer at RNIB; and forthe telephone survey, contact Vocaleyes.

What is included withinthis publicationThis publication summarises the researchundertaken for the Talking Images project.The findings are ordered thematicallyaround the particular issues of a visitor’sexperience, and each section containspertinent findings on that theme fromeach research study.

• Planning for inclusion contains userand venue experiences of consultationand evaluation. It also contains findingsinto the number of venues that haveaccess policies and how these planswork in an organisation.

• Improving access: information looksat the number of venues that provideaccessible information and the user’sexperience within these venues.

• Improving access: descriptions,tours, touch and events containsuser’s and venue’s perspectives ofdifferent approaches to improvingaccess to collections.

• Improving access: audio guidesexamines issues around developingaudio guides that are accessible to blindand partially sighted people – the mainfocus of the research. Issues include theuser perspective of technology,description and orientation, informationand sound quality.

• Promoting your service looks atwhat motivates visitors to attend avenue, and why non-visitors do notattend. It examines how blind andpartially sighted people find out aboutleisure activities and summarises theexperiences of venues in marketingservices.

• Welcoming visitors with sightproblems examines the customerservice blind and partially sightedvisitors receive at venues, and at howaccessible premises are.

• The Summary concludes the report.

Contact details for further information canbe found at the end of the publication.

The aim of this report is not to provideconclusions but to illustrate experience,views and opinion of users and venues.The Talking Images Guide drawstogether these responses, providingpractical guidance, recommendations andcontacts in order to help venues provide ahigh-quality experience for visitors withsight problems. Details of how to obtain acopy of this guide are available on the backcover of this publication.

8

archives and libraries sector to touch thelives of everyone.

Arts Council England is the nationaldevelopment agency for the arts inEngland, distributing public money fromGovernment and the National Lottery.Arts Council England’s ambition is to placethe arts at the heart of national life,reflecting the country's rich and diversecultural identity as only the arts can.

MAGDA is a not-for-profit organisationcomprised of museum and galleryprofessionals who work to achieve accessfor all. MAGDA promotes the rights ofdisabled people to enjoy museums,galleries and heritage sites as visitors andemployees.

English Heritage is the Government'sstatutory adviser on the historicenvironment. English Heritage is anExecutive Non-Departmental Public Bodyand reports to Parliament through theSecretary of State for Culture, Media andSport.

Summary:This section containsfindings from the research that dealwith consulting users and developingpolicies based on consultation. Usersand venues both recognise theimportance of consultation.Theresearch shows however thatconsultation is often reactive ratherthan part of a long-term strategy.Consultation also tends to focus onservices rather than policy. Half of thevenues surveyed for the Talking Imagesproject have an access policy, whilst arecent Resource survey indicated that38 per cent of museums have one.

Access policies andimplementation

The venue perspective

Several venues surveyed for Talking imagesrecognised the frustration of providingservices outside of an access policy.

“It appears that the opportunisticproduction of an audio guide – outsidea planned access plan/policy – doesnot contribute greatly to the widerissue of improving access for visitorswith visual impairments.” Venueparticipating in the survey

Of the venues surveyed for the TalkingImages project:

• nearly two-thirds of organisations in thesample (36 venues) have an accesspolicy

• 62 per cent (34 venues) have a disabilityaccess policy, half of whom state thattheir policy mentions blind and partiallysighted people

• just over half of the venues have anaccess or disability action plan (28organisations); half of those with a planstate that this mentions visuallyimpaired people

• in only 20 organisations, however,(36 per cent of the sample) is accessfor disabled people built into annualbudgets.

Access is prioritised in capitaldevelopments. 82 per cent of the venues(45 organisations) stated that the needs ofvisually impaired people are consideredwhen planning a refurbishment or buildingwork. In terms of exhibitions, half of theorganisations (28 venues, 51 per cent)affirm that their exhibitions budgetincludes provision to put access fordisabled visitors into practice.

Whilst the sample of venues researchedfor Talking Images reflects a range of typesof venue and scale of operation, it isrecognised that this sample is notrepresentative of all museums, galleriesand heritage sites, as only venues with

11

2. Planning for inclusion

they had an idea about how much otherservices for visitors with sight problemsare used.This indicates that many venuesdo not have evaluation mechanisms inplace.

The 2001 Resource survey of provision fordisabled users of museums, archives andlibraries found that most consultationcarried out was found to be reactive, andinformation tended only to reach thosewho were already users of a service.

• 47 per cent of museums said that theyhad user groups including disabled andnon-disabled people

• only 27 per cent of museums hadconsulted with non-users

• 43 per cent of museums hadmechanisms for reporting back toparticipants on the findings ofconsultation, compared to 75 per centof libraries.

However, despite the venues recognisingthe value of consultation, less than twothirds of organisations (34 venues, 62 percent) stated that blind and partially sightedpeople had been consulted when servicesfor visitors with sight problems weredeveloped. Of these organisations:

• eight use or have used consultants whohave a sight problem

• five consulted with local societies ofblind and partially sighted people

• two have access groups with blind andpartially sighted members.

However, only 21 organisations (38 percent) stated that they had consulted blindand partially sighted people when accesspolices had been developed.

Only a quarter of venues stated that theymonitor and evaluate services for blindand partially sighted visitors (13 venues).Of these organisations:

• four evaluate in an ad hoc way throughdiscussion with visitors

• two venues work with local societiesfor people with sight problems

• two use evaluation forms

• one hosts access evenings and solicitsfeedback at these events.

Whilst 21 organisations (38 per cent)stated that they had an idea about howmuch their audio guide is used by blindand partially sighted visitors, only 13organisations (24 per cent) stated that

13

audio guides were included.Thereforefindings from other research studies whichaimed to be representative of the sectorare included.

The 2001 Resource survey of provision fordisabled users of museums, archives andlibraries consulted with 340 organisations.This survey found that:

• only 38 per cent of museums have apolicy or plan that specifically mentionsdisabled people

• only 46 per cent of museums have partof their core budget earmarked forproviding services for disabled people.

The 1998 Digest of Museum Statistics(DOMUS) survey of 690 museumsconducted by the Museums and GalleriesCommission found that even fewer venueshad a disability policy:

• 28 per cent of museums had a disabilitypolicy

• 23 per cent of venues had a disabilityaction plan.

These findings illustrate that althoughmany venues involved in the Talking Imagesresearch recognise the importance of anaccess policy, there are many venues thatdo not have such a policy.

12

Consultation andevaluation

The user perspective

Focus group participants stated that theybelieve consultation with blind and partiallysighted visitors is essential when developingservices. Consultation should be plannedinto any project or service developmentfrom the start, and should continue intouser assessment of services delivered.Consultation needs to involve a range ofpeople to reflect the diversity of views andneeds of blind and partially sighted people.

“You need to try it on a wide range ofpeople, there are so many differenttakes on things, and you need to get across section of opinion.” Focusgroup participant


The venues surveyed for this project alsorecognised the importance of consultation:

“Always get advice from people withdirect experience of visual impairment.Be focused – don't take on too muchor you won't achieve your aims.”

“It's very important and useful toconsult the end-user in thedevelopment of a service, facility orbuilding.” Venues participating inthe survey

Summary:The auditors describedhow having information in accessibleformats would encourage them toattend a venue.Yet several of theauditors visited venues whereinformation was not accessible.Thevenues surveyed for this project wereorganisations that had audio guidesand were willing to participate in thestudy and therefore may representorganisations that are aware of theneeds of people with sight problems.Yet even in this sample, 42 per cent ofthe venues surveyed admitted that atbest, a blind or partially sighted visitorcould access none, or only “a little” oftheir venue, collections and eventsthrough using information in accessibleformats. Over two-thirds of thevenues stated that they provided littleor none of their information in largeprint, despite the fact that large printcan be easily and cheaply produced.

The user perspectiveThe auditors discussed what wouldencourage them to visit a venue:

“Having information about themuseum in an accessible format thatwe can read would encourage me toattend, then you can make an informedchoice.” Focus group participant

“In my case, I wouldn’t go somewherewithout accessible information unless Ihad a guide.” Focus groupparticipant

In some of the venues where audio guideswere audited, information that wasavailable to sighted visitors was not madeavailable in accessible formats:

“Literature ranging from advertisingleaflets, general and specificinformation, is not currently availableto visually impaired people.This needsto be rectified urgently.”

“Access to sighted literature andinformation is vital and informationshould be provided in accessibleformats such as braille, large print, andaudio cassette.” Auditors


Forms of accessible information

Venues were asked what formats theirgeneral visitor information is available in.The most frequently provided format waslarge print, but this was only provided by45 per cent of the venues. (see table 1overleaf).

15

3. Improving access: information

17

On-line information

Over two-thirds of the venues (38organisations) stated that they have a website:

• of these, only 29 per cent,(11 organisations) stated that their sitesare accessible to blind or partiallysighted people

• only five of the venues provideddescriptions for blind and partiallysighted people of photographs or otherimages on their website.

The Resource survey of provision fordisabled users found that only 26 per centof museums have websites complying withstandard guidelines for universal access,compared to 41 per cent of libraries.

Linking accessible information to the venue

Organisations involved in the surveydiscussed ways in which visitorinformation for blind and partially sightedpeople had been linked to their venue.

• 12 venues (22 per cent of the totalsample) stated that visitor informationfor people with sight problemsintroduced exhibits or features whichcan be touched or handled.

• Four of the organisations stated thatthey had developed minoltas or raisedimages professionally produced.

16

Table 3: How much of your venue,collections and events are accessiblethrough information in accessibleformats

Large print Audio Braille

No. % No. % No. %

None 20 36.4 18 32.7 35 63.6

A little 18 32.7 14 25.5 12 21.8

A fair amount 4 7.3 9 16.4 1 1.8

Much 5 9.1 5 9.1 0 0.0

All 2 3.6 3 5.5 0 0.0

Venues were then asked roughly whatproportion of any visitor information isavailable in accessible formats.(see table 2).

Two of the venues provide all theirinformation in large print and three inaudio formats. However:

• 58 per cent provide at best “a little” oftheir information in audio

• 69 per cent provide at best “a little” oftheir information in large print

• 85 per cent provide at best “a little” oftheir information in braille.

42 per cent of the venues surveyedadmitted that at best, a blind or partiallysighted visitor could only access “a little”of their venue, collections and eventsthrough using information in accessibleformats (see table 3).

Table 1: Provision of accessibleinformation

No. of venues %

Large print 25 45.5

Braille 17 30.9

Audio 12 21.8

Table 2: Proportion of visitor information available in accessible formats

No. %

None 7 12.7

A little 16 29.1

A fair amount 16 29.1

Much 7 12.7

All 1 1.8

Base: 55 venues

Base: 55 venues

Base: 55 venues

The DOMUS survey undertaken in 1998found that even fewer venues produceaccessible information.

• Four per cent of museums produceinformation in braille.

• 14 per cent of museums produceinformation in large print.

• Two venues had a tactile model of thebuilding.

• Two venues described illustrations theyhad produced which enhance visibilityfor partially sighted visitors.

“We have black and white schematicdrawings for selected key portraits,combined with descriptive, large printguides.”

“All of the objects in the guide werechosen with the assistance of a visuallyimpaired person for their accessibility,e.g. colour contrast.” Venuesparticipating in the survey

18

Summary:This section containsfindings from the research intoapproaches to improving access tocollections. Users were positive aboutopportunities to touch objects andmodels in venues, and were also, ingeneral, positive about guided tours.Respondents to the phone survey saidthey would be likely to attend venuesmore often if there was a wideravailability of services for people withsight problems.


General impression of services

Respondents to the phone survey whowere regular, occasional or infrequentvisitors of museums, galleries or heritagesites were asked to rate their overallexperience of services and facilities forblind and partially sighted people at thesevenues as shown in table 4.

• Displays and objects you can touch,models you can touch, and one-to-oneguides were most likely to be awarded“very helpful” ratings.

• Braille information and tactile mapswere the most likely to be awarded“very unhelpful” ratings although it isnot known how many people in thesample are braille readers.

• People were also more likely to awardinformation in large print and raisedimages “unhelpful” or “very unhelpful”ratings than “helpful” or “very helpful”ratings.

21

4. Improving access: descriptions,tours, touch and events

Percentage of respondents providing rating

Very Helpful No Unhelpful Very Basehelpful benefit Unhelpful

General audio or print 22 30 22 10 16 125

One to one guide 33 23 25 6 13 103

Staff escort 30 23 18 5 22 92

Information in large print 16 22 18 15 29 79

Braille information 13 15 13 10 45 78

Audio guides for visually impaired visitors 29 34 21 6 10 149

Tactile maps 22 12 26 7 33 76

Raised images 19 25 22 13 22 79

Displays you can touch 37 22 22 7 12 113

Models you could touch 35 23 22 6 15 102

Live events and talks 29 28 25 7 10 109

Total 285 257 234 92 227 1105

Experiences of usingservicesThe phone survey found that a third ofrespondents who were aware of servicesor facilities offered at the last venue theyvisited did not make use of them.Themost popular reasons for not usingservices or facilities were that people feltthey “would not add to their experience”(five people) and that they were “notappropriate to their needs” (four people).Doubts about the quality, cost and no onebeing there to assist were explanationsmentioned by one respondent,and two respondents supplied otherexplanations.

Two-thirds of respondents who wereaware of services or facilities at the lastvenue they visited (35 people) had goneon to use them. Respondents were askedto rate each of the different types ofservice or facility they had used separatelyas “very helpful”,“helpful”,“no benefit”,“unhelpful”,“very unhelpful”.Althoughover half of the ratings provided werepositive (56 per cent), a quarter of themwere negative and 19 per cent fell in the“no benefit” category.The ratingsprovided by respondents would seem tosuggest that galleries, museums andheritage sites have room for improvement.

The types of service and facility thattended to be awarded positive ratingswere “audio guides for blind and partiallysighted visitors”,“displays and objects thatyou can touch” and “models you cantouch” – in each case more than 70 percent of ratings were in the “very helpful”or “helpful” category, as shown in table 5overleaf.

2322

Table 4: Ratings awarded for services and facilities by respondents who visitedgalleries, museums and heritage sites frequently, occasionally or infrequently

Base: 208 respondents who had visited galleries, museums and heritage sites.

Number of respondents providing rating

Very Helpful No Unhelpful Very Total no.helpful benefit Unhelpful of ratings

General audio or print 1 4 4 2 4 15

One to one guide 3 6 6 1 3 19

Staff escort – 2 2 – 4 8

Information in large print 1 5 1 1 3 11

Braille information 6 3 2 – 3 14

Audio guides for blind and partially sighted visitors 8 3 2 – 2 15

Tactile maps 4 2 – – 4 10

Raised images 4 1 2 – 4 11

Displays and objects you can touch 11 3 3 – 3 20

Models you can touch 9 2 2 1 1 15

Live events or talks 6 1 5 1 2 15

Total 53 32 29 6 33 153

25

On the negative side staff escorts, generalaudio and printed information and tactilemaps were the services and facilities mostlikely to be awarded “unhelpful” or “veryunhelpful” ratings – in each case 40 percent or more of the ratings were in thesecategories:

• four of the eight respondents who hadused a staff escort on their last visitindicated the service was unhelpful andonly two people awarded the service apositive rating

• six out of 15 people using general audioand printed information awarded themnegative ratings while five awardedpositive ratings

• although four people awarded thetactile maps they had used a “veryunhelpful” rating, six awarded thempositive ratings. Possibly there wasvariation in the quality of this serviceacross venues or it might be that this isthe type of facility that works well forsome and not for others.

It needs to be remembered that therespondent sample is small and the rangeand quality of services and facilities offeredwill vary from venue to venue. People’sneeds will also differ and a facility oneperson might find useful may be of nobenefit to someone else or even beunhelpful. For example, one respondentfound touch tours a “harrowingexperience”, while another said shewanted more opportunities to touch

objects during her visit.This helps explainwhy there are examples of respondentsvisiting the same venue and having verydifferent experiences. For example, onerespondent was “very disappointed” withthe services offered at The NationalGallery but another had attended thesame venue and been impressed. In thesame vein, the Victoria and Albert Museumreceived positive feedback from somevisits and was described as “wonderful forblind people” by one, but one visitor wascritical. Because each visitor is different, itis important to offer a variety of ways toaccess your collections.

Respondents to the phone survey wereoffered the opportunity to commentfurther on their last visit and experienceof galleries, museums and heritage sitesmore generally.The feedback highlightshow important staff are in making visitorsfeel welcome, making visitors aware offacilities or services and supporting themduring their visit as necessary.There weremany cases of visitors praising staff forbeing accommodating, helpful and positive.However, there were also a few cases ofstaff not explaining how to use equipmentvery clearly, not being very informed andtelling a visitor off for touching an objectwhen the visitor concerned could not readthe sign that said “do not touch”. Onerespondent noted that staff neededtraining about the needs of people withsight problems.

24

Table 5: Ratings awarded for services and facilities used on last visits

Base: 35 people who had used at least one service or facility for blind or partiallypeople at the last gallery, museum or heritage site they visited.

27

Several respondents offered positivefeedback on being able to touch objects at venues and being able to go behindbarriers and take more time in visits.A number of auditors also commented onhow much they enjoyed the opportunityto touch exhibits or objects at the venues.

“I thought that the description ofobjects was very good and in somecases for objects that could not bereached or felt, they provided replicapieces for me to feel.”

“A lot of historical information wasgiven, and because a lot of the exhibitswere of a robust nature, I was able tohandle most things which lessened theneed for a full description.” Auditors

When objects were not available to betouched, the experience of the visit wasless enjoyable for many of the auditors:

“The huge number of artefacts ondisplay but only a small percentagewere available for tactile exploration.”Auditor

“The castle is ideal for touch tours,but all furniture is roped off andobjects are behind glass.”

“The tour guide actively discouragedtouching objects because there werepigeon droppings – the offer of tissuesor the opportunity to wipe handsafterwards might have helped a lot.”Auditors

The venue perspectiveJust over half of the venues in the sample(31 venues, 56 per cent) provide liveguided tours for blind or partially sightedvisitors:

• only eight organisations (15 per cent ofthe total sample, a quarter of thosewho provide tours) stated that a guidewas always available

• eight venues stated that a few daysnotice was needed in order to providea guide, four venues stated a week, twostated, ten days, five stated two weeksand two that four weeks was needed.

26

Slightly fewer organisations (30 venues)provide tours or activities for groups ofpeople with sight problems whilst 39organisations (71 per cent) provide visitsfor groups, which include people with sightproblems (e.g. school groups, families).

23 venues (42 per cent) stated that blindand partially sighted visitors could borrowpre-visit information (e.g. generalinformation, an audio guide, a tactile map):

• five venues stated that visitors couldborrow audio guides in advance of avisit

• four stated that other audio tapes couldbe borrowed

• three lend large print versions of theiraudio guide scripts

• four lend general information in large print

• two lend tactile maps.

15 organisations state that they providetactile models. 29 organisations (53 percent) stated that there were objects thatcan be handled.

Over half the venues (29 organisations,53 per cent) state that generally speaking,they provide exhibition panels(information/interpretation) which havebeen designed for people with sightdifficulties and/or people with readingdifficulties in mind.

• Seven venues (13 per cent of the totalsample) stated that less than five percent of their panels roughly fits thiscategory.

• Over a third (21 venues, 38 per cent ofthe total sample) stated that over half oftheir panels fitted this criteria.

Venues were asked what proportion oftheir collections or historic property theyfeel is currently accessible to blind andpartially sighted people, when consideringall services offered:

• 29 venues (53 per cent) felt that lessthan 50 per cent is accessible

• 12 organisations (22 per cent) felt thatless than 10 per cent of their collectionsor historic property is accessible.

Summary: The main focus of theTalking Images research was on theuse of audio guides.This sectioncontains findings from the research onthe accessibility of technology used,descriptions on the guides, orientationinformation and quality of recordings.

An overview of audio guides


In the telephone survey, respondents wereasked to rate services they had used atmuseums, galleries and heritage sites.Audio guides for blind and partially sightedpeople were positively received with 63per cent of respondents finding these“very helpful” or “helpful”.

As well as compiling reports on theirexperiences at venues, the auditorsdiscussed examples of good and badpractice at a focus group meeting:

“My worse experience was probablyan audio guide for visually impairedpeople that was confusing andmisguided.They went to a lot oftrouble to give you an audioimpression of what the rooms hadbeen like, but the sound effectsoverwhelmed the speech of theinformation they were trying to giveyou.” Auditor

The ideal guide was seen as being anintegrated guide that has information forblind and partially sighted visitors on amainstream guide.This information shouldbe layered so that those who wish toaccess additional description ororientation information can access it:

“The way to make an inclusive guide isin layers. If you are sighted and youdon’t want to know how to use theaudio guide, it will say,“if you want tohear how to use the audio guide pressfive”. If you don’t want to have adetailed description of a particularpainting then you don’t have it.Therewill be detailed orientationinformation but it will not assume thatyou will be on your own.” Auditor

29

5. Improving access: audio guides

“One guide was inclusive. It had someextraordinary descriptions built in tothe commentary. I think that it is areal art, building in the descriptionwithout it being obvious.” Auditor

3130


Venues surveyed for this projectrecognised the value of audio guides, butalso the associated difficulties.

“Audio guides are a minefield! Wehave expensive out of date guides andnot really any money to update thoughwe are looking at options.”

“The availability of a high quality audioguide really enhances the visit forvisually impaired people. However, itneeds a lot of careful considerationand consultation to ensure it meetsthe required standard and can give thevisitors confidence in their unfamiliarsurroundings.” Venues participatingin the survey

Technology


Auditors were asked questions on thetechnology used to deliver the audio tourthey were assessing. Of the 63 audioguides assessed:

• 20 were on a walkman

• 27 on a form of audio wand (includingall forms of MP3 player)

• nine on a CD based player technology

• seven guides were on other formats,including recordings operated by a footpedal whilst sitting down and a mobileunit the visitor travels in with an audionarration.

Although the vast majority of auditorsrecorded that a member of staff offeredto explain how to use the technology,during eight of the visits this service wasnot offered. One auditor noted that shedid not have instruction on how to useher audio guide and “there was nodescription at the start of the CD on howto use the machine.”

Over half of the audio guides weredescribed as “easy” or “very easy” to use.However, eight of the guides (12.3 percent) were described as “difficult” to use,and a further three as “not easy”. Of theeight guides described as “difficult” to use,two were on walkman, three on audiowand and three on CD.

When the ease of use was cross-tabulatedagainst the type of technology, it was foundthat of the three main technologiesassessed, the audio guides in the samplethat were on audio wand technologies andthe walkmans were considered the easiestto use (see table 6). It must beremembered, however, that the sample sizeis insufficient to draw conclusions.

Auditors were asked to give the positiveand negative features of the technologythey used in each guide.

Walkman

Many of the auditors using walkmansstated that one of the positive features ofthis technology was the ease of use:

Table 6: Ease of use of technology

Difficult Not Easy OK Easy Very Easy Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No.

Walkman 2 10.0 1 5 5 25 8 40 4 20 20

Audio Wand 3 11.5 2 7.7 4 15.4 12 46.2 5 19.2 26

CD player 3 30.0 0 0.0 4 40.0 3 30.0 0 0.0 10

Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 4 80.0 5

“The walkman technology is veryfamiliar, as I use it for reading.Thismade the tour very relaxing with noneed to master any differentexperiences.”

“The first Sony walkman was a verytactile machine to use and very easyto operate. It had just four buttons,stop, play, fast-forward and rewind andsome of the buttons were differentcolours.” Auditors

However, there were distinct negativefeatures given on the walkman audioguides used, for example, it was difficultfor auditors to repeat a description orsection if they wished to listen again tothat section:

Base: 63 guides

“One problem with the audio wand isthat it does not give you a verbalreadout of the number you have typedin before starting a description.”

“It was difficult for a blind person touse unaccompanied as there was noaudio readout of the number keyedin.” Auditors

Another difficulty expressed was how ablind or partially sighted visitor wouldknow which number to enter forinformation on the audio wand, as thesenumbers were given via visual signs:

“A blind person could not access thiswand alone, it is only suitable forpartially sighted visitors as it demandsa visual cue to key in and there is noaudio readout to give the nextnumber.” Auditor

33

“I got tangled up in the wires. It wasnot easy to get back to an exact spoton the tape if I missed something.”

“Unfortunately the tape would onlywind forward so in order to rewind ityou had to turn the tape over andwind it forward then turn it overagain.There was no cue and review.”Auditors

A number of the audits highlighted thelimitations in the linear format of thewalkman tours.There was no opportunityto find out more information about aparticular object, work of art or area thatinterested the visitor:

“You were limited to listening to thetour; there were no facilities for extrainformation.” Auditor

As the walkman guides generally haveheadphones that go over two ears, theseguides could be difficult to be used by ablind or partially sighted visitor who isbeing guided:

“I was wearing headphones at sametime as being escorted by a guide. Eargrommet type headphones would beeasier in this instance so notcontinually taking headphones on andoff.” Auditor

Audio wand

Audio wands can offer random access tothe information stored on the player, whichcan give the user control over theinformation they listen to:

“I was able to choose works I foundinteresting by dipping in and did nothave to follow a linear pattern.Thisallowed for interpretation as well asdescription.” Auditor

Several auditors commented on the ease ofuse of using a telephone keypad on thewand, and of having a tactile indication ofthe number five:

“The audio guide starts by giving a veryclear and simple description of wherethe buttons are and their function.”

“Compared with other audio wands,this one had a sensible control layoutand allowed easy navigation within anitem, the ability to skip back andforward, which I found missing in manyothers.” Auditor

32

There were however guides which werenot considered easy to use, mainly due tothe non-standard layout of the buttons:

“This wand was the most unintuitiveand awkward I have encountered. Forexample, pause did not pause/resume(you had to press play after pausing),volume was left for up, right for down,the number keys were neither at thetop nor at the bottom, no rewind orfast-forward, or any other way ofnavigating within items.”

“Buttons were pressed accidentallybetween one session and the next; thisseems a weakness in the design.”

“Simply starting any item proved quitedifficult.You had to be in a particulardefault state before it would start, andit was impossible to tell without seeingthe visual display.” Auditors

Another difficulty in using an audio wandwas that auditors found they did not knowif they had correctly entered the numberthey required for a particular item asnumbers were only confirmed via visualoutput (e.g. LCD) rather than by an audiooutput:

CD

CD players, like wands, were praised forthe ability to randomly access information,and also to access additional informationon an item when it was offered:

“I was using a mini CD player that hadvarious tracks to choose from forfurther information about historicalevents that took place. I liked the factthat you could choose if you wishedto play them or continue on the tour.”

“The CD was in sections.After thedescription of the presentsurroundings you had an option oflistening to further information aboutthe current spot or skipping andcontinuing to the next point.”Auditors

In terms of operating the CD players, anumber of auditors expressed difficulty inknowing the function of the variousbuttons on the guide and navigating theirway around the keypads:

“The machine had not been tested forits suitability and ease of operation bya visually impaired person. It was noteasy to differentiate between controlbuttons – I would suggest applicationof bump ons.” Auditor

General principles:

• Layout: Controls should be groupedseparately and made distinctive fromeach other. For example, the number-pad should be clearly separated fromother controls, and should be at the topof the panel; the volume up/downbuttons should be together, andseparate from other groupings.Thenumber-pad should respect theconvention of the telephone key-pad (1-2-3 on the top-row) since this is in farmore common use than thecomputer/calculator layout.

• Visual indication:When symbols areused to represent functions or controls,then widely recognisable ones should bechosen.An easy-to-read font should beused for all display indications. Colourcombinations must have a contrast(brightness) of 4.0 or greater.Thereshould be a clear colour and tonecontrast between the buttons and thesurrounding panel, and/or coloured‘circling’ of buttons.

• Audible indication: Feedback shouldbe given to confirm that a button presshas been accepted, or warn if it has not.If the unit is speech-enabled, then thisfeedback will be in the form of spokenprompts and confirmations of thebutton pressed. If not, then a simplesystem of tones or beeps, such as isused in mobile phones, will be adequate.

For example, a short discrete beepmeans that the press was accepted, anda longer harsher beep means that somesort of error occurred.

• Tactile indication: Buttons should beclearly distinguishable from thesurrounding panel and from each other,so they should project, be hard plasticrather than rubber, and should give afirm positive click when pressed.Shaped buttons can help to confirmfunctions, such as arrows pointing rightand left for moving forward and back, orup and down for volume. On thenumeric keypad, the widely acceptedconvention of putting a dot on thenumber 5 should be respected.

• Functions and controls: In order tonavigate effectively within and between alarge number of recorded items ofvariable length, the following controlsare essential, and must have dedicatedbuttons (not dual function). No guideaudited has met these requirements.

Play: starts an item from the beginningwhen it is selected.

Stop: stops the item, ready for eitherre-play from the beginning, or entry ofnew item.

Pause: pauses the item mid-way, andresumes when pressed again.

35

“To start the guide you had to press99 then the green button.To stop theguide you had to press the red button.Both buttons were joined together atthe top and very difficult todistinguish.”

“The digital readout was small, and thebuttons were also small.You neededsome sight to confirm right buttonspressed as controls were small andsensitive and therefore it was easy topress wrong button.” Auditors

Accessible audio guides

One of the key findings of the audits interms of technology was the high degreeof inconsistency, and difficulty that blindand partially sighted people found in usingthe equipment, even when the guides weresupposedly designed specifically with themin mind. The experiences of the auditorswere collated by one of the auditors intoa set of guidelines that reflect the views ofthe users who participated in the projecton how audio guides could be made moreaccessible.These guidelines assume thatthe guide will be in the form of a wand,with a numeric keypad giving randomaccess to items that are stored in solid-state memory. Most of the principlesshould apply to other carriers such as CD,PDAs or adapted MP3 players, but thewand is the working model.

34

Description


Auditors discussed their experiences ofaudio description in general andparticularly on audio guides in the focusgroup meeting.The aim of description wasto “convey what the person is seeing” to aperson who can’t see it as well:

“A good description for me issomething that tells me what theperson can see in as clear and concisea way as possible. It’s different for alarge biblical picture with thousands ofcharacters in it when you need to pickout elements, because if you describedevery single element in the picture youwould be there for two hours.Thatwould be very different fromdescribing a still life that’s just a fruitbowl where you’ve got a simple objectwhere you need to say somethingabout the colours or the perspectiveor presentation. It’s something for me,that seems to be conveying what theperson is seeing, simple as that.”Focus group participant

Auditors wanted to experience a balanceddescription that was neither too subjectivenor objective:

“If you have too much detail it tendsto be boring; you also need to capturethe essence of it.That’s your balance,that’s what you’re aiming for.” Focusgroup participant

An ordered approach was discussed, onethat started with a description of thegeneral environment, then moved to anoverview of the image or object, its sizeand dimensions, before considering thedetail of that image or object.A number ofthe auditors also discussed the possibilityof combining tactile elements into a visitto complement the description:

“You have to start with the roomyou’ve walked into, the environmentyou are in.”

“You must start off with a global ideaof what the painting is of, I really thinkthat’s important, otherwise the rest ofit won’t make sense.” Focus groupparticipant

How useful were descriptionscontained within the guidesaccessed?

Descriptions on all audio guides wereassessed to determine the quality andeffectiveness of the information conveyed,and how much it contributed to the visit.

37

Scroll forward/back: a group of twocontrols allowing forward or backwardscrolling with audible movement(sometimes called cue and revue).

Clear/cancel: returns to default stateif you make a mistake.

All the guides reviewed had somecombination of these controls, butoften had dual-function buttons, ormissed some of the essentialfunctionality.

Other considerations:

• Listening modes:There should be twoways of listening to the audio: throughthe wand itself, in the style of atelephone handset, but also throughstereo headphones for extendedlistening or when the audio andproduction quality are more critical, soa headphone socket is essential.Thetype of headphones or earphonesshould be considered carefully. Forexample, in most visiting situations, it isimportant to be able to hear sounds inthe environment clearly alongside theaudio-guide, but there may be settingswhere it is important to reduce outsidenoise with closed or ‘in-ear’ designs.

• Carrying: Guides should be fitted witha cord or strap, to allow them to becarried round the neck so that handsare free when needed.

36

• Triggering of items:A number ofsystems, based on infra-red or radiocontrol ‘tags’, or GPS location, make itpossible for appropriate items to playautomatically when the visitor passesthe right point, or simply to indicatewhich item is nearby, so that it may beselected when desired. One of thesesystems should be used wheneverpossible, in view of the difficulty ofknowing when you are near a numbereditem.

• Multimedia guides: New guidingtechniques are constantly beingdeveloped, some current examples beingmultimedia workstations placed aroundvenues, and portable multimedia devices(similar to PDAs) containing all theinformation content in memory.Theprinciples in these guidelines should beapplied to new carriers, in such a waythat the information content, whethertext, audio, or, where applicable,graphical, be made accessible to blindand partially sighted visitors.

39

Auditors were asked how much thesedescriptions helped them to form a clearmental picture of the object. Bothmainstream guides and guides specificallydeveloped for people with sight problemswere assessed and the assessments werefairly similar for specific and generalguides. Of the guides that were consideredto help “very much”, 14 were specific and4 were general.

Specific guides were also seen tocontribute more to auditor’sunderstanding of sites and collections; 16of the 26 guides which were considered tocontain descriptions that “very much”contributed to understanding were specificguides.

Descriptions on mainstream guides

Although standard guides had not beenspecifically designed for blind and partiallysighted visitors they had many positiveaspects to enjoy.

Some of the auditors stated that thedescriptions given on the mainstreamguides were sufficient for them to accessthe interpretative commentary:

“Several paintings were describedexcellently, giving emphasis oncharacters facial expressions andposition of limbs. In the paintings thebackground atmosphere wascommunicated well.The audio guidecontained interesting historical facts.”

“The guide gave some description ofthe painting, but did not attemptcomprehensive description. I foundthis sufficient and enjoyedconcentration more on backgroundhistorical information, and in-depthdiscussion of context of the pictureand artist.” Auditors

There were several comments that theguides could have contained a greaternumber of descriptions or greater detail inthe descriptions given:

“I might just as well have listened tothe audio guide in the comfort of myhome as it was purely based onhistorical information.”

“The guide did not explain what wasin the room itself…. For example, Iactually found a pile of barley on thefloor when I stuck my white stick intoit by accident, up till that point I hadactually assumed the room wasempty.” Auditors

38

“There is only passing reference towhat must be one of the mainattractions for visitors to the gallery –the building itself.This interest in thebuilding is likely to be just as true ofvisually impaired visitors as anyoneelse. I would have liked a bit morebackground, history, and informationabout the space.” Auditor

Descriptions on specific guides

The descriptions on the specific guidescontributed greatly to the enjoyment ofthe exhibition or site.

• Half of the specific guides assessed (15guides), were said to contribute “verymuch” to the enjoyment

• 10 of the guides (a third) contributed“much”

• The assessments of the descriptiveelements were much higher than forthe standard audio guides when only 16per cent of the descriptions were saidto be “excellent” and 14 per cent“good”.

Although in general the descriptions onthe guides developed specifically for blindand partially sighted people were positive,there were some negative comments.Some guides were felt to have littledescription and not to be specificallyuseful for people with sight problems:

“Most of this guide was historicalbackground.There was very littledescription. I believe that the versionfor visually impaired people had verylittle added to the standard one;perhaps some additional introductorymaterial, but hardly any description.”

“I was told that the guide is a modifiedversion of that for the general public. Ido not think that sufficient thoughthad gone into this modification. Itshould be redesigned from scratch toincorporate far more description anda certain amount of orientation andspecial information.” Auditors

Three of the guides were felt to havedescriptions that were overly long with noopportunity to skip unwanted description,and consequently lost the listener’sattention:

“The length of description was oftentoo long – ability to switch to greaterdepth only if required would havebeen useful in order to give the visitora choice.” Auditor

41

“I am afraid I got rather bored duringthe descriptions.The descriptionswere very lengthy and there was nochange in pace or variety within thevoice.The descriptions weremeticulous but ultimately unengaging.”Auditor

Auditors were asked to consider howlively the text was. Several guides were feltto be patronising in tone:

“It was mostly well written andrelevant, but the level veered frompatronising to over-technical whentalking about architecture (transoms,mullions and praecenium).”

“Apart from the dramatisations whichwere good, the actual commentarywas rather dry.The parts specificallyfor visually impaired people borderedon patronising.” Auditors

• most of the guides gave generalinformation on the site or museum butfewer gave details on the building thevisitor was standing in

• less than half the guides gave theapproximate duration of the visit

• 90 per cent of the audio guide auditorsstated that they thought that generalinformation of this sort was “reallyuseful”.

40

Other guides were felt to be engaging andlively:

“The voice was very conversational,and the informal style made for a veryengaging experience. Changing thespeaker at different points alsoretained interest. Light humour wasfrequently included in the text.Thiswas sufficient to put a smile on theface.”

“The voices on the guide were thoseof the director, curator, chief restoreretc and they were all very enthusiastic.It was like being given a personal tourby the owner of the collection.”Auditors

One guide had a recorded index, whichwas considered a very useful feature:

“The audio guide contains a separatesection listing the items that will bedescribed per room with their relatednumbers, I found this featureextremely helpful.” Auditor

Auditors assessed the information thatwas available at the beginning of the audioguide that introduced the venue:

Auditors reported on the sorts ofinformation that was given when individualobjects were described. Descriptionstended to focus on the generalinformation such as title and date ofproduction rather than more detailedbackground information on the produceror production techniques.Whilst 77 percent described what the object is and itsperiod, only half described the productiontechniques:

%

The historic site or museum, its features or collections 86.2

The period/style 80.0

About features, exhibits,spaces that form part of the guide 73.3

About the building in which you were 66.7

About the surroundings 46.7

The approximate duration of the visit 43.3

Table 7:At the beginning, did theaudio guide give you a general ideaabout:

Base: 30 specific guides.

%

The title or name and what it is 76.7

The period/style 76.7

The date of production 73.3

The author or producer 60.0

The production techniques 50.0

Table: 8:What information was givenin descriptions of individual objects:

Base: 30 specific guides.

“Had there been points of referencethat could be touched, then thedirection, description or size mighthave meant something.”

“The guide provided severaldescriptions of size and shape.However, one of the most basicomissions was that it did not saywhere the listener was.This meantthat any partial sight the listener hadcould not be put into use.” Auditors

It was felt that information on the locationof other visitor services would be useful:

“There is no basic information onquiet seating areas, refreshments areas,or access information (portable seatsetc). I felt there needed to be more ofan overview on what is on each floor,and how to get there.” Auditor

Some of the auditors experienceddifficulty in using the orientationinformation on the guides:

“Even my guide was confused as towhere we were being directed to goon the tour.” Auditor

43

Orientation information


Orientation information was discussed byauditors and it was recognised people havevery different needs in terms of theamount and sort of orientationinformation they want or require on aguide, making it difficult to produce a guidethat caters for all needs:

“Visually impaired people are alldifferent, they are all individuals.Youcannot assume that just because oneperson is OK with stairs that someoneelse will be. I don’t think there shouldbe a guide specifically for visuallyimpaired people without offeringsomebody to take you round. Peoplehave different needs.” “If you have to find your way around, ittakes the concentration away from theguide. It takes the enjoyment away aswell.” Auditors

Orientation information should not onlyrefer to how to navigate a space, butshould also describe this space:

“I’d like to know about the space thatI am in, that’s the most importantthing… ‘This is a big room… there arecertain features that may appeal toyou, there’s a fire place in the centreof the room.’ I am aware of space andI want to know about it.”

“The guide made some attempt todescribe the view out of the windows,which was particularly impressive asthis is commonly missed from mostaudio guides. It is not necessary forevery window or room, but helps togive orientation of the room and thebuilding.” Auditors

The proportion of guides with a positiveassessment of orientation information wasconsiderably higher for the guidesspecifically designed for people with sightproblems than for the standard audioguides. One auditor described howenhanced orientation information on oneguide had improved her visit: “Of all theaudio guides, this one gave me far moreorientation description, which made thetour far more enjoyable.”

Auditors felt that guides should offerpoints of reference to help the visitor innavigation:

42

“The navigational information in theaudio guide was limited, and at thestart was positively misleading, so thateven sighted people could get itwrong.The navigational notes werealways at the end of the trackdescribing the function of a particulararea, if they were missed, or forgotten,then it was necessary to repeat thewhole track until the navigation noteswere again received.” Auditor

Accessing information onthe audio guide


Guides that worked on a random accessmethod require the visitor to key in anumber to activate a particularcommentary.A problem encountered atseveral venues was the difficulty in locatingnumbers in collections that referred to thenumbers to be entered into an audioguide:

“It was difficult to locate the paintingdescribed. Room numbers weredisplayed discretely in the left handcorners of display boards.They weretoo small and hung too high to see.Numbers next to paintings were alsosmall and difficult to find.” Auditor

Those who visited with a sighted guide,found that this was an issue for their guideas well:

“What ruined one visit for me, wasthat both myself and my guide couldnot find the numbers you needed forthe audio guide. I had to work so hardto find the information that itdetracted from the pleasure of thevisit.”

“The signage was inconsistent, in oneplace it was on a yellow background,sometimes on blue, sometimes theywere big, sometimes small. Not that Icould see them but the guide who wasshowing me round, and who knew theplace couldn’t find them. It really spoiltthe visit.” Auditors

In some venues, exhibits are frequentlymoved and if the audio guide is notupdated, it can be difficult for visitors tofollow the guide:

“When we went to the gallery therewere paintings missing, but it didn’t tellyou on the guide.” Auditor

4544


Displays frequently change in somemuseums and galleries.Venues were askedif displays were changed, affecting thecontent of the visitor guide for blind orpartially sighted people, what would theirorganisation tend to do.A quarter of thevenues said they would usually update itwhilst another quarter stated that theywould be likely to leave the guide as itwas.

Quality of recordings andadded acoustic features


The sound quality on the guides wasgenerally considered to be good; negativecomments related mainly to muffled soundor obtrusive background noise:

“The sound was muffled and noisy, asif from a worn tape, so that some ofthe speech and songs wereincomprehensible.”

“The sound was generally rather poor,it sounded like the tape had beencopied from a copy, possibly severaltimes, and the quality had degeneratedprogressively.” Auditors

Auditors were asked whether any addedacoustic features were relevant to thecollection/place visited, and virtually all

were considered to be (80 per cent eitherrelevant or very relevant) although therewere a few negative comments:

“Some of the sound effects wereconfusing and muddled. One kitchenscene sounded like a busy railwaystation.”

“The guide had irritating, ill-definedbackground sound effects that werepitched at a low volume” Auditors

In general, the quality of thecommentator’s voice was considered to begood. Positive features identified related tothe variety of voices used, and intelligiblespeed of delivery and fluctuation andemphasis in the delivery:

“The accent was local to the areabeing described.The voice was clearand speed of delivery good anduniform.”

“There was a wide variety of male andfemale voices.These were mainlyEnglish accents, but Scottish voiceswere used to describe Scottishpaintings.”

“The commentary was quite informaland made me feel very relaxed andwelcome.” Auditors

Negative features that were raised weremonotony, caused by one voice being usedfor the whole tour, and delivery ofcommentary being too fast:

“It would have been further enhancedif one or two additional voices,including female, could have been usedin order to add variety”

“The voice was well paced to coverthe material, and was perfectly clear.However, it was a very blandpresentation.” Auditors

Some of the auditors gave positivefeedback on guides that reproduced theacoustics of the space the visitor was in,which was seen as being very important inconveying the sense of size and type ofspace the listener was in:

“By recording the guide on site I gotan excellent perception of the spacethat I was in.”

“There was no local sound, the tapesounded like it had been made in astudio. Possibly unfortunate as thespaces of the cathedral clearly offeredsome opportunities for interestingsounds, including the organ.Background sounds could have beenrecorded on site, and merged withdescription in the studio.” Auditors

Summary:Venues surveyed for thisproject do not feel that information ontheir services is reaching blind andpartially sighted people.The phonesurvey undertaken for this projectsuggests that blind and partially sightedpeople receive information on leisureactivities from a range of sources butthat local societies, friends and familyand talking newspapers are the mostfrequently used.

The user perspectiveWhat motivates people who visitvenues to attend?

Respondents to the phone survey whohad visited a gallery, museum or heritagesite were asked which statement bestdescribed their reason for attending:

• 52 per cent said “a day out”.

• 23 per cent had had a particular interestin a site, building or its contents.

• 22 per cent had visited a temporaryexhibition or event.

What would motivate people whovisit venues to attend more often?

Visitors to galleries, museums or heritagesites were also asked if a series of factorswould impact on their decision to increasethe number of times they visited. For eachof the factors listed there was a positive

response, with at least two-thirds ofrespondents saying such a measure wouldimpact on their decision to attend moreoften.

The factors that had most popularappeal were:

• wider availability of specialist facilities or events for blind and partially sighted visitors (84 per cent)

• more general information on galleries, museums or heritage sites (83 per cent)

• improved quality of the facilities or events offered for blind and partially sighted visitors (82 per cent).

Three-quarters felt that having anorganisation to co-ordinate visits wouldlead to them visiting more often, whilebetter transport to the venue (69 percent) and more information about facilitiesfor blind or partially sighted visitors (66per cent) were also identified as significantfactors.

What would persuade those who donot currently visit venues to attend?

The 55 respondents who had never visitedgalleries, museums and heritage sites wereasked to choose from a list of possibleexplanations the one that best described

47

6. Promoting your service

When deciding whether to visit a gallery,museum or heritage site a number ofdifferent factors, such as cost andconvenience of location, are taken intoconsideration. For people with sightproblems, awareness of any specialistfacilities that will help maximise theirenjoyment and understanding during visitsis an additional factor that might influencea decision.Almost three-quarters ofrespondents who never visited venues (72per cent) indicated they would considermaking a visit if they were made awarethat a venue had facilities such as audioguides, specialist talks or objects theycould touch.

How do people find out about leisure activities?

All respondents to the telephone surveyundertaken for this project were asked toindicate from a list what would be theirmain source of information if they wantedto find out about leisure events andactivities. Societies or groups for blind andpartially sighted people (36 per cent),friends and family members (31 per cent)and talking newspapers (31 per cent) werethe sources most commonly identified, asis shown in table 10 overleaf.There wereno significant differences in the range ofsources used by visitors compared withnon-visitors.

49

their reason(s) for never visiting.The mostfrequently given reasons for not visitingwere “no personal interest” (25 per cent)and “I feel as a visually impaired personthere would be little for me to enjoy” (24per cent), see table 9.

48

% of respondents that Number of respondentshad never attended that never attend

No personal interest 25 14

I feel as a visually impaired person there would be little to enjoy 24 13

Difficult to find transport to venue 18 10

Too complicated to organise visit 18 10

Difficult to find a companion 15 8

Lack of information on places to visit – –

Lack of information about specialist facilities or events for blind orpartially sighted visitors – –

Other – –

Total 100 55

Table 9: Reasons that best describe why people had not attended

Base: 55 respondents who never attended.

Difficulties finding transport to venues, thecomplications of organising a visit anddifficulties finding a companion were alsosignificant factors.

Source of information % of Number of respondents respondents

Society or group for blind and partially sighted people 36 94

A friend or family member 31 81

Talking newspaper 31 79

Radio 28 73

Local or national newspaper 22 58

Via a brochure or leaflet 19 50

From the internet 14 36

Other 15 39

5150

Table 10: Main sources of information about events and activities

How aware are people of services at museums, galleries and heritagesites?

Respondents who had named a museum,gallery or heritage site that they hadrecently visited (133 respondents) wereasked if there were any facilities orservices for people with sight problems atthe venue they visited that they wereaware of. Of the 133 respondents only 40per cent had been aware of such a serviceor facility.Awareness was particularly lowin local galleries/museums (28 per cent),indicating that provision in these types of

Table 11: Respondents aware of facilities or services at their last visit to agallery, museum or heritage site

Last venue visited % aware % not aware Base

Local gallery/museum 28 72 47

National gallery/museum 50 50 40

Heritage 43 57 46

Total 40 60 133

Base: 133

venues was comparatively poor or thatthey were not successfully making blindand partially sighted visitors aware of whatwas on offer. Over half of respondentsvisiting the other types of venue knew offacilities or services (see table 11).

Of those 53 respondents who were awareof any services or facilities at the lastgallery, museum or heritage site theyvisited, just over half (51 per cent) knew offacilities before they arrived and just underhalf on arrival (see table 11). For twenty ofthese visitors the provision of services andfacilities had been a deciding factor for

their visit.What this suggests is theavailability of services and facilities is a pullfactor for a significant proportion ofvisitors who have sight problems.

The small size of the sample (53 peopleaware of facilities) makes it difficult todraw conclusions about patterns ofawareness across the different types ofvenue. However, the survey indicates thatrespondents who had visited nationalgalleries and museums were more likely toknow of specialist services and facilitiesbefore they arrived at the venue (60 percent) than people visiting heritage sites (40 per cent). If visitors to royal palacesand National Trust properties are excludedfrom the analysis then the proportion ofheritage site visitors knowing aboutfacilities or services before arrival waslower still (31 per cent).

Base: 259 (eight people did not answer the question). Note: respondents could specifymore than one source so percentages add up to more than 100 per cent.

Service %

General visitor information 41.8

Shop 36.4

Distance from bus stop, railway station or underground 36.4

Website 34.5

Visitor information for blind and partially sighted people 27.3

Group visits for blind and partially sighted people 27.3

Audio guide for blind and partially sighted people 25.5

Group visits, inclusive of blind and partially sighted people 25.5

General travel information 25.5

Main means of transport 25.5

Mainstream audio guide 21.8

One-to-one guided tours 21.8

Coffee shop/restaurant 21.8

Tactile or multi-sensory interest of the collection or venue 14.5

Events programme 12.7

Tactile and/or bold/colour contrasted map 12.7

Tactile model 7.3

Accessible features of the website 5.5

Other 23.6

5352

% aware % not aware before arrived before arrived Base

Local gallery/museum 54 46 13

National gallery/museum 60 40 20

Heritage 40 60 20

Total 51 49 53

Table 12:Awareness of facilities and services before arrival at venue

Almost all respondents who were awareof services and facilities before theyarrived at venues indicated how they hadheard about the facilities or services (25of the 27).The most common sources ofinformation were a society or group forblind and partially sighted people. (eightpeople), contacting the venue direct (fivepeople), word of mouth (four people) andmembership of an organisation (threepeople). Only one person had obtainedinformation through the internet and onefrom a general brochure or leaflet.Interestingly, 16 respondents had passedthis information on to others.Thesefindings highlight the importance formaland informal networks people with sightproblems.

Staff play an important role in drawingvisitors’ attention to facilities and servicesfor people with sight problems. Of thoserespondents who had only found out

about services or facilities during theirvisit, the most popular source ofinformation had been staff (13 people).Other sources (displayed information,printed information, audio information andcompanion) were each mentioned bythree or less people.

The venue perspectiveHow do venues market services?

Venues were asked what services orinformation they publicise to blind orpartially sighted visitors. Obviously, theservices promoted at any particular venuedepend on the services offered at thatvenue, but the following chart shows thatthe information that is publicised is patchyand often excludes information such asgeneral travel information and whetherthere is a café.

Table 13: Services publicised to blind or partially sighted visitors

Base: 53 (respondents who were aware of facilities or services at last venue visited).

Base: 55 venues.

When asked where they publicise servicesfor blind and partially sighted visitors:

• six stated that they advertise services intheir general publicity

• four stated that they publiciseinformation to local societies for peoplewith sight problems

• three in publications aimed at peoplewith sight problems such as RNIBs New Beacon magazine.

• two through access guides

• two through their local TalkingNewspapers

• two through mailing lists to interestedindividuals.

Those venues that were managed by largerorganisations promote services in accessguides that cover all that organisationsvenues (e.g CADW, Historic Scotland,National Trust.) Nearly half (26 venues)state that their services for blind andpartially sighted visitors are publicised in“mainstream visitor” leaflets.

Venues were asked whether theypublicised their services, collections orhistoric property to blind and partiallysighted visitors in accessible formats.16 venues (29 per cent) publicise theirservices in large print, eight in audio and five in braille.

54

No. %

Large print 16 29.1

Braille 5 9.1

Audio 8 14.5

Other 8 14.5

Table 14: Formats in which servicesare promoted

How effective is this marketing?

Venues do not feel that blind or partiallysighted visitors are aware of their services.When asked how aware they think blindand partially sighted visitors are of theservices they can visit on their own orwith a friend/companion, 44 venues (80per cent) felt that blind or partially sightedvisitors would either be “not at all” oronly “a little” aware of services.

A third of the venues (18 organisations)think that blind and partially sighted peopleare “not at all” aware of the services amember of staff can offer to interestedindividuals and groups, in addition to theaudio tour. Nearly half (49 per cent, 27organisations) feel that blind and partiallysighted people are only “a little” aware.This means that 82 per cent of theorganisations surveyed felt that blind andpartially sighted people were either “not atall or “only a little aware” of the servicesstaff can offer other than the audio guide.

Base: 55 venues.

Summary:This section containsfindings from the research into thewelcome blind and partially sightedpeople receive at museums, galleriesand heritage sites. Users commentedpositively on the customer servicethey received in general but felt incertain instances that members of staffwere either not very confident inspeaking to people with sightproblems, or not very aware of whatthey could be doing to make visitsmore enjoyable.This section alsocontains research into how welcomingbuildings are to blind and partiallysighted visitors.


In general, the auditors were positiveabout the customer service they hadreceived at venues:

“Some people always say ‘why do youwant to go on holiday?’, ‘why do youwant to travel?” but on the wholepeople who work in museums havenot been like that. On the contrary,they have been very helpful.”

“Staff are welcoming and helpful.Thereis a small café on ground floor that isserved by staff who are aware of theneeds of visually impaired people.”Auditors

“My reception by all staff was verywelcoming and positive, they arealready well aware of the difficultiesexperienced by blind and visuallyimpaired visitors.” Auditor

The experience of visiting venues hadmeant that the auditors felt it wasimportant to call in advance to ask whatservices were available and to a make anappointment:

“If I turn up without having calledbeforehand and ask if there’s anyonewho can show me round and they say– ‘I’m sorry we’re too busy today’,then I’ll accept that and I’ll say “Ohdear, that’s a shame, I’ll come backanother time.”

“One thing I have learnt from thisexercise is to ring the placesbeforehand and ask what services areavailable for someone who is visuallyimpaired. If they say “none at all”, I willstill go but I will take a guide with meand get the information that I want.”Auditors

Auditors had however experiencednegative responses when they had called inadvance at venues:

57

7.Welcoming visitors with sightproblems

59

The auditors were pleased that the surveyhad provided them with the opportunityto express their opinions on the servicethey received at venues and were keen toencourage others to do the same:

“You need to make them aware that’snot the way to treat somebody andapproach them with suggestions.”Auditor


Venues were asked whether staff hadreceived training in how to meet the needsof blind and partially sighted visitors:

• in 25 of the venues (45 per cent), frontof house staff had received such training

• in 21 venues (38 per cent), guides andeducation officers had been trained

• in 17 venues (31 per cent) managers anddirectors had been trained.

Less than a quarter of the venues (13organisations, 24 per cent) stated thatthere was any evaluation of existingservices for people with sight problems.

The Resource survey of provision ofservices for disabled users found that:

• 44 per cent have briefings on theimplication of the DDA

• 49 per cent have disability equalitytraining exploring social and otherbarriers

• 51 per cent have awareness training,with simulated “experience” of specificdisabilities

• 39 per cent have awareness training insensory impairments

• 39 per cent have disability briefingsessions, to put over plans to promoteinclusion

• 33 per cent have training that is focusedon members of staff who meet thepublic

• 55 per cent of museums have training toincrease awareness on access fordisabled people that extends to allmembers of staff.

The 1998 DOMUS survey found that only32 per cent of museum staff had receiveddisability awareness training.

“It’s just that they see a visuallyimpaired person as a problem and theydon’t know how to go round it.Thebest way is just to say ‘no’.” Auditor

During their visits to venues for the study,some of the auditors had encounteredsome bad experiences in terms ofcustomer service:

“When I said on the phone that I wasgoing to look in my diary, he said,“Look! You can’t look! Don’t use suchan expression! You told me that youhad no sight!” And that was on thephone, he kept me for 10 minutes.That’s the sort of person he was, themost unaware person I’ve ever met.”Auditor

It is key to ensure that whoever a visitorfirst speaks to at a venue is aware of thepotential needs of people with sightproblems:

“The person who is the contact shouldhave some sort of understanding aboutwhat is expected of and what is meantby a ‘guide’.There must be someonecompetent to answer the phone andgreet you when you get there.”Auditor

“Staff were, on the whole, very helpfuland well tuned into the needs ofvisually impaired people, neitherneglectful nor patronising. However,I did get the classic ‘over there’description, and ‘straight ahead’ beingbased on the speakers orientation, notthe listener, which resulted in meheading off in the wrong direction.”Auditor

A number of auditors commented on thebenefit of being accompanied by a staffmember from the venue who couldexpand on information given in the audioguide:

“As my assistant could see which partof the commentary I was listening toat any given time via the LCD on theMP3 player, she was able to addrelevant comments and extra pieces ofinformation and, if necessary, stop themachine in order to provide furtherexplanation.”

“My sighted guide did an excellent jobguiding me around the exhibitionparticularly when the CD player wasmalfunctioning. My guide’s extensive in-depth knowledge and personaldescriptions make me realise what theaudio guide had not revealed.”Auditors

58

“I was a little confused as the braillewas under a line of raised text.”Auditor

In the phone survey, some of the servicesor facilities that were offered by galleries,museums and heritage sites were criticised– a braille guide was out of date, braille ondoors was inaccessible because it wasplaced too high.

Venues were also criticised by somerespondents for their poor lightingconditions, poor lettering and signage, lackof large print or clear notices andproviding captions that were difficult toread (e.g. captions on background colour).

There were also several complaints aboutsteps and stairs, for example, lack ofmarkings to differentiate ramps fromsteps, lack of a rail guard and so on.

Thirteen of the audio guides that wereaudited, which were specifically designedfor people with sight problems, wereoffered with tactile maps.These werefound by some of the auditors to be usefulfor orientation, and others not. Obviouslyhowever, there are a number of variablesin this matter – the personal preference ofthe visitor and their familiarity with tactilemaps, the quality of the tactile map itselfand the ease of the building to navigate.A number of comments on tactile mapswere made in the general comments ofthe audit reports.A number of auditors

“I found reading the map extremelydifficult because I have had no previousexperience of using tactile maps.Thetactile map gives you an idea of whereartwork is within rooms, butpersonally I did not find it useful forfinding the galleries.” Auditor


• 13 of the venues in the sample (24 percent) have a tactile map for blindvisitors.

• Only five (nine per cent) have a largeprint map.

• 19 of the venues (35 per cent) statethat clear signage has been put in placeto facilitate orientation.

• 18 of the venues (33 per cent) havelabelled exhibits, furniture/fittings orarchitectural features in large size print(e.g. 24 point).

• Three venues (five per cent) have braillelabels.

61

Accessible environments


Auditors commented on the accessibilityof the physical environments at some ofthe venues. Some venues were praised fortheir accessibility:

“The guide covers three floors of thisbuilding all of which are easilyaccessible and served by a lift which isfitted with braille controls and a voicesynthesiser.” Auditor

Whilst in others there were difficultieswith various features such as access todisplay cases (“the glass in the displays wasnot non-reflective”) and lighting. Displaytext and signage were other areas thatwere criticised in the reports:

“The signs need to be larger and couldeither be back lit or have a smallspotlight on them.They could beconsistently placed.” Auditor

Some of the venues audited had braillesigns although some of these were placedin the wrong position:

60

felt that tactile maps would have greatlyenhanced their independence at venuesthat had not provided them:

“To allow independent exploration atactile map would have been useful fororientation… and could have beenused to locate and advise relevantnumbers.” Auditor

A number of the tactile maps werecriticised however. Some were not up todate or inaccurate, and others weredifficult to take on a visit:

“I found the tactile map veryproblematic as it had inaccurateinformation.Things were in the wrongplace or not there at all, this made theexperience ultimately very frustrating.”

“The tour, because it does not giveorientation, has to be used inconjunction with the large print folderand tactile map, making the wholeprocess very cumbersome.Thiseffectively means that a blind personwould not be able to access this tourwithout assistance.” Auditors

Other auditors experienced difficultieswith reading maps but recognised thatothers may not:

“It’s all to do with making people withpower in organisations aware that it’snot a privilege for a blind person totouch an exhibit or to have an audioguide that is accessible, it’s a right”Auditor

This publication has summarised theresearch undertaken for the Talking Imagesproject.The research has found bothexamples of good practice and imaginativeapproaches, and situations when the moraland legal right of people with sightproblems to access information andservices has not been met.

• Planning for inclusion has shown thatalthough venues recognise theimportance of consultation andevaluation, there are venues thatdevelop services without consultation,and few that have long-termmechanisms for consultation or thatfeedback to participants on findings.Resource research indicates that only38 per cent have an access policy thatmentions disabled people. Only a thirdof museums surveyed for Talking Imageshave access for disabled people builtinto annual budgets.

• Improving access: informationillustrated the frustration of blind andpartially sighted people visiting venuesthat do not have information in a form

63

they can access.Talking Images andother research indicates that few venuesprovide information in accessibleformats. Large print can be easily andcheaply produced yet is often notprovided. 42 per cent of the venuessurveyed for Talking Images admittedthat at best, a blind or partially sightedvisitor could access none, or only “alittle” of their venue, collections andevents through using information inaccessible formats.

• Improving access: descriptions,tours, touch and events gave theviews of users on services provided forblind and partially sighted people. Havingthe opportunity to touch both realobjects and models, and receivingpersonal guided tours were servicesthat were generally praised. Few venuessurveyed were able to offer a one-to-one guide without several days or evena few weeks notice. 53 per cent ofvenues felt when all services wereconsidered, less than half of theircollections or property were accessibleto visitors with sight problems.

8. Summary

• Improving access: audio guides gavethe experience of users in terms of theaccessibility of technology used,descriptions on the guides, orientationinformation and quality of recordings.These findings illustrate that when donewell, an audio guide can be an excellentway to improve access for visitors withsight problems. Just because a guide is inaudio, however, does not necessarilymean that it will be accessible to blindand partially sighted people. Inaccessibletechnology, badly written descriptions,poor recording quality or addedacoustic features made for frustratingvisits.

• Promoting your service revealedthat many venues surveyed for TalkingImages do not feel that information ontheir services is reaching blind andpartially sighted people. Respondents tothe telephone survey said their mainsources of information on leisureactivities were local societies, family andfriends and talking newspapers.Almostthree-quarters of respondents to thephone survey who never visited venuesindicated they would consider making avisit if they were made aware that avenue had services for blind andpartially sighted people.

• Welcoming visitors with sightproblems showed that although manyvisitors commented positively on thewelcome they received at venues, therewere instances when members of staffwere not aware of the potential needsof blind and partially sighted people.There were also comments from userson poor lighting, signage and displaytext.

The research also informs the threepractical case studies undertaken byVocaleyes.The findings in this publicationhave been used to inform the developmentof the Talking Images Guide.This guide canbe consulted by venues for ideas andinformation on how to create a high-quality experience for people with sightproblems.

64

Image to followfor page 65

Contact details are correct at time ofgoing to press and are not exhaustive.

Partner organisations

Vocaleyes(Nationwide audio description producers)25 Short StreetLondon SE1 8LJTelephone 020 7261 9199www.vocaleyes.co.uk

Royal National Institute of the Blind105 Judd StreetLondon WC1H 9NETelephone 020 7388 1266Contact:Talking Images Arts and HeritageOfficer

Contact for RNIB products,publications and factsheets:

RNIB Customer Services PO Box 173Peterborough PE2 6WSTelephone 0845 702 3153 Minicom 0845 58 56 91Email: UK customers –[email protected] customers –[email protected]

Funders and advisors

Arts Council England14 Great Peter StreetLondon SW1P 3NQTelephone 020 7333 0100 Textphone 020 7973 6564 www.artscouncil.org.uk

Cadw – Welsh Historic Monuments National Assembly for Wales Cathays ParkCardiff CF10 3NQ Telephone 029 2050 0200 www.cadw.wales.gov.uk

Department for Culture, Media and Sport2-4 Cockspur StreetLondon SW1Y 5DHTelephone 020 7211 6200Email: [email protected]

English HeritageCustomer Services Department PO Box 569Swindon SN2 2YPTelephone 0870 333 1181www.english-heritage.org.uk

Historic ScotlandLongmore HouseSalisbury PlaceEdinburgh EH9 1SHTelephone 0131 668 8600www.historic-scotland.gov.uk

67

9. Contacts

The Group for Education in Museums Primrose House193 Gillingham RoadGillinghamKent ME7 4EPTelephone 01634 31 24 09Email: [email protected]

Guide Dogs for the BlindBurghfield CommonReading RG7 3YGTelephone 0870 600 2323www.guidedogs.co.uk

Institute of Leisure and AmenityManagementILAM House Lower BasildonReading RG8 9NETelephone 01491 87 48 00Email: [email protected]

Museums Association24 Calvin StreetLondon E1 6NWTelephone 020 7426 6970Email: [email protected]

National Library for the BlindFar Cromwell RoadBredburyStockport SK6 2SGTelephone 0161 355 2000www.nlbuk.org

The Partially Sighted SocietyQueens RoadDoncasterSouth Yorks DN1 2NXTelephone 01302 32 31 32 Email: [email protected]

RNID19-23 Featherstone StreetLondon EC1Y 8SL Telephone 0808 808 0123 (freephone)Textphone 0808 808 9000 (freephone)www.rnid.org.uk

Sense11-13 Clifton TerraceFinsbury ParkLondon N4 3SRTelephone 020 7272 7774 Textphone 020 7272 9648 www.sense.org.uk

69

Museums & Galleries DisabilityAssociation (MAGDA) Guy Purdey, (Chair)c/o South East Museum Library and Archive CouncilKent and Medway OfficeGarden RoomHistoric DockyardChathamKent ME4 4TETelephone 01634 40 50 31www.magda.org.uk

Resource16 Queen Anne’s GateLondon SW1H 9AA Telephone 020 7273 1444www.resource.gov.uk

68

Other charities and organisations

Action for Blind People14-16 Verney RoadLondon SE16 3DZ Telephone 020 7635 4800www.afbp.org

Audio Description AssociationAdrienne Pye, Membership Secretaryc/o Arts Marketing HampshireMottisfont CourtTower StreetWinchester SO23 8NDTelephone 01962 84 69 60

Audio Description Association(Scotland)Caroline Brophy, Chairc/o Edinbrugh Festival Theatre13/29 Nicolson Street Edinburgh EH8 9FTTelephone 0131 529 6000

Disability Rights CommissionDRC HelplineFREEPOSTMID02164Stratford upon Avon CV37 9BRTelephone 08457 622 633Textphone 08457 622 644 www.drc.org.uk

Black Box AV Ltd25 Aberafan RoadBaglan Industrial ParkPort TalbotWest Glamorgan SA12 7DJTelephone 01639 76 70 07Email: [email protected]

The Dog Rose Trust83 GreenacresLudlowShropshire SY8 1LZTelephone 01584 87 45 67Email: [email protected]

Fieldsman TrailsColin AntwisFron Deg Clayton Road Mold Flintshire CH7 1SU UK Telephone 01352 75 62 02 Email: [email protected]/town/parade/ni30/fieldsman/

Flexleigh Audio GuidesScotlands HouseWarfieldBracknellBerkshire RG42 6AJTelephone 020 733 7999Email: [email protected]

OPHRYS SystemsBCM Ophrys SystemsLondon WC1N 3XXTelephone 0800 028 1308Email: [email protected]

71

International organisations

Art Education for the BlindThe Cummer Museum of Art and Gardens829 Riverside AvenueJacksonvilleFlorida 32204. USATelephone (904) 356 6857www.arteducation.info

Australian Human Rights and EqualOpportunities Commissionwww.hreoc.gov.au

Audio guide producersThis list of producers is not exhaustive andthe inclusion of a producer does notconstitute a recommendation from theTalking Images partners.

Acoustiguide

188 Sutton Court RoadLondon W4 3HRTelephone 020 8747 3744Email: [email protected]

Advanced Thinking Systems1 South LaneClanfieldWaterloovilleHampshire PO8 0RBTelephone 023 9259 5000Email: [email protected]

Antenna AudioJ 307-309 Tower Bridge Business Complex,100 Clements RoadLondon SE16 4DGTelephone 020 7740 1155Email: [email protected]

Audio Visual Consultants107-111 Whitehouse LoanEdinburgh EH9 1ATTelephone 0131 447 6211Email: [email protected]

70

Accessible informationConfederation of TranscribedInformation Services (COTIS)67 High StreetTarporleyCheshire CW6 0DPTelephone 01829 73 33 51www.cotis.org.uk

RNIB Transcription Services105 Judd StreetLondon WC1H 9NETelephone 020 7391 2341

RNIB Web accessibility team105 Judd Street London WC1H 9NETelephone 020 7388 1266Email: [email protected]

Talking Newspapers Association ofthe UKNational Recording CentreHeathefieldEast Sussex TN21 8DBTelephone 01435 86 27 37www.tnel.co.uk or www.tnauk.org.uk

Inclusive DesignSensory Design ServicesRNIB PeterboroughBakewell RoadOrton SouthgatePeterborough PE2 6XUTelephone 01733 37 52 80Email: [email protected] www.sds-uk.org

7372

Producers of tactileimages, maps and modelsThe Dog Rose Trust83 GreenacresLudlowShropshire SY8 1LZ Telephone 01584 87 45 67Email: [email protected]

Living Paintings TrustQueen Isabelle HouseUnit 8, Kingsclere ParkKingsclere, NewburyBerkshire RG20 4SWTelephone 01635 29 97 71www.livingpaintings.org

National Centre for Tactile Diagrams

University of HertfordshireHatfieldHerts AL10 9ABTelephone 01707 28 63 48 Email: [email protected]

RNIB Tactile Images and plansSue King Customer Liaison Officer RNIB Peterborough PO Box 173 Peterborough PE2 6WSTelephone 01733 37 07 77

Accessible environmentsCentre for Accessible EnvironmentsNutmeg House60 Gainsford StreetLondon SE1 2NYTelephone 020 7357 8182Minicom 020 7357 8182www.cae.org.uk

JMU Access Partnership105 Judd StreetLondon WC1H 9NETelephone 020 7391 2002Email: [email protected]

National Register for AccessConsultantswww.nrac.org.uk

Audits

Aim

This study was an assessment by blind andpartially sighted visitors of a sample ofaudio guides offered at museums, galleriesand heritage sites in the UK. Four mainareas were covered in the assessments ofaudio guides: technology, sound, contentand description.

Methodology

A team of 12 blind and partially sightedauditors based across the UK wasrecruited by RNIB to undertake the audits.Auditors were briefed on the project, theresearch and aims, and on the particulardetails of the survey.

Venues with audio guides were identifiedwith the help of a number of organisationsincluding:

• English Heritage

• The National Trust

• Historic Scotland

• Cadw

• SEMLAC (formerly SEMS)

• NWLAC

A matrix of these audio guides wasdeveloped to ensure a balancedrepresentation of museums, art galleries,heritage sites, historic ships and stately

homes. A representative sample of venuesin England,Wales and Scotland wasselected; at this stage of the projectdevelopment, no audio guides wereidentified in Northern Ireland.The steeringgroup, with additional input from theadvisory group, developed the report formto be completed by the auditors, coveringthe audio guide and the visit in general.

The audit assessments were arranged withthe knowledge of the venues and tookplace between September 2001 andNovember 2002. The auditors completeda detailed report on each visit.Theinformation gathered forms a substantialuser assessment of audio guides by blindand partially sighted visitors. However, thesize of the sample does not permitextensive cross-tabulation, and anemphasis has been put on the wealth ofqualitative feedback amassed. It must alsobe remembered that the experiencesrecorded are those of one person on oneparticular day.

Venue survey

Aim

The aim of this study was to survey themuseums, galleries and heritage sites in theUK who participated in the audit study, toascertain what services they provide forblind and partially sighted visitors. Sevenmain areas of provision, management andevaluation were covered.

75

10.Appendix

Methodology

Venues were selected as described above.Participating venues were sent a self-assessment questionnaire that wasdeveloped by the project steering groupwith additional input from the advisorygroup.The questionnaire was sent toorganisations by post. All of the 55participating venues completed theirassessment form.

It must be remembered that the venuesparticipating in this survey are a sample ofvenues that offer audio guides to theirvisitors, not a sample of all museums,galleries and heritage sites.The venuessurveyed already have audio guides andtherefore may represent a more positivepicture of provision for blind and partiallysighted people than is commonly found. Itmust also be remembered that thequestionnaire was completed by thevenues themselves, and is subject to theirinterpretation both of the questions asked,and their own provision.

Phone survey

Aim

As part of Talking Images, RNIB andVocaleyes wished to obtain a moreinformed view about blind and partiallysighted people’s attitudes towards visitingart galleries, museums and heritage sitesand their experiences. It was felt that atelephone survey of blind and partiallysighted people with an interest in arts andleisure would provide valuable data thatcould be followed-up at a later stage witha more in-depth investigation of issues.

Methodology

RNIB and Vocaleyes used their mailing liststo compile a sampling frame of individualswho were known to have an interest inarts and leisure.This is one of the reasonswhy the survey population is notnecessarily representative of blind andpartially sighted people more generally.

A telephone research company,The PhoneRoom, interviewed 267 visually impairedpeople and a research consultant, HelenJermyn, was commissioned to write areport summarising key findings.

76

Talking Images Cov 01/05 - Audio...

Documents

Transcript of Talking Images Cov 01/05 - Audio...