=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3622/paper4
|storemode=property
|title=Accessibility challenges and technological solutions for people with low
vision when visiting museums
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3622/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-3622
|authors=Rami Salameh,Joel Lanir,Sarit F.A Szpiro
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/amid/SalamehLS23
}}
==Accessibility challenges and technological solutions for people with low
vision when visiting museums==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3622/paper4.pdf
Accessibility challenges and technological solutions for
people with low vision when visiting museums
Rami Salameh1, Joel Lanir1 and Sarit F.A Szpiro1
1 University of Haifa 1, 199 Abba Khoushy Ave., Haifa, Israel
Abstract
People with low vision (i.e., functional yet impaired sight) often find it challenging to visit museums. It
may be difficult for them to view, and experience exhibits the way they were designed or to navigate
their way through the museum. In order to better understand their challenges and needs, we conducted
a semi-structured interview with 11 individuals who have low vision. Our primary aim was to
investigate their experience within the museum environment, and to gain insights into how they
navigate and interact with the various exhibitions and displays that are on offer. During the interview,
we delved into various aspects of their museum visits, including their use of tools and assistive
technologies that can aid them in their exploration of the exhibits. Additionally, we also inquired about
the types of resources and accommodations that are provided by museums to make the visit more
effective and enjoyable for individuals with low vision. Through these interviews, we gathered valuable
feedback and suggestions that could inform the development of technological solutions for more
accessible and inclusive museum environments for people with low vision.
Keywords
Low vision, vision impairment, accessibility, museum. 1
1. Introduction
Low vision refers to a condition of vision impairment that cannot be corrected by medical or
surgical treatments or eyeglasses, but the person still has remaining and functional sight. Low
vision may entail various sight issues such as tunnel vision, blurriness, blind spots, light
sensitivity, loss of ability to see in the dark, poor peripheral vision, and more. Low vision affects
employment and daily activities from mobility to shopping [5, 7, 13]. and social ties as well as
emotional and mental health [5]. Moreover, the prevalence of low vision is projected to increase
as many low vision conditions are age related and the proportion of older adults in the population
is increasing globally. Although people with low vision face a variety of challenges, little work has
been dedicated to the accessibility of leisure and culture related activities.
In the current study, we focus on the understanding of the challenges people with low vision
face when visiting cultural heritage sites in museums and the ways in which technology can
alleviate these challenges. The current work is the first part of a larger project looking at how to
design technology to enhance the visiting experience of people with low vision. Our long-term
goal is to develop augmented reality-based assistive technologies to support people with low
vision in visiting and touring museums. To understand current practices and challenges, we
conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 visually impaired people at the Hecht Museum
(Figure 1), a small-to-medium sized museum located at the University of Haifa. We describe the
challenges listed by participants and discuss various ways in which technologies can be used at
the museum to help low-vision participants.
AMID 2023 - Workshop on Accessibility and Multimodal Interaction Design Approaches in Museums for People with
Impairments, September 27, 2023, Athens, Greece
rami.slameh@gmail.com (R. Salameh); ylanir@is.haifa.ac.il (J. Lanir); sarit.szpiro@edu.haifa.ac.il (S. F.A Szpiro)
0009-0009-5391-0888 (R. Salameh); 0000-0002-9838-5142 (J. Lanir); 0000-0001-7814-0757 (S. F.A Szpiro)
© 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
Figure 1: Hecht Museum (om the left big staircase in the entrance, on the right: Ramp with small
slope which can be difficult to see by people with low vision)
2. Related work
Little work has examined understanding the experiences, challenges, and strategies of people
with low vision in museums and cultural heritage sites. Prior work on museum visits for people
with visual impairments has often examined together people with low vision and people without
any remaining sight (i.e., blind), although the needs and strategies of these two populations highly
differ [12, 13]. In general, museums are designed for sighted people and mostly not accessible to
people with visual impairments. Factors such as dedicated tour guides, audio guides, and
haptic/tactile experiences are known to enhance the accessibility of museum visits [1].
Several researchers have suggested dividing the accessibility challenges of museums into two
categories: mobility issues and exhibit or artwork accessibility [2, 11]; although the two should
be addressed simultaneously [11]. Overcoming these two types of accessibility challenges has
overwhelmingly focused on tactile and auditory modalities. Several studies have used a
monomodal approach to facilitate museum visits either with tactile methods or auditory
methods. Tactile methods often use 3D printed materials such as 3D printed aerial views of
archeozoological sites [14] or 3D printed versions of ancient artifacts [8]. Auditory methods
include accessible audio tour guides (i.e., with accessible and descriptive verbal information) or
enhanced auditory information such as an NFC triggered audio guide with path descriptions as
well as interactive soundscapes that are used to enhance a tour in a botanical garden (e.g., sounds
of animals [3]). Notably, each modality can be used to enhance both mobility in the museum and
accessibility of the exhibits.
In recent years, there has been more work towards creating multimodal experiences,
including the use of manual movements that are detected using sensors to control audio
information. In one study, the fingers’ location on a conductive surface controlled the description
of a van Gogh painting and even activated ambient feedback like wind [4]. In another study,
Rector used the Microsoft Kinect to track both depth in space and manual movements to control
and activate complex auditory experiences that provide different types of information about 2D
paintings, which the authors called proxemic audio interface for eyes-free art [9]. A recent study
with 72 people with visual impairments, has also stressed the importance of multisensory
experiences for visitors with visual impairments at different stages of the visit from planning, on-
site visit, and post-visit [4]. However, although several studies have raised the importance of
multisensory experiences, all focused on auditory and tactile modalities and none on enhancing
the visual modality, likely because the target audience included both blind and low-vision people.
One recent study has examined specifically the needs of people with low vision versus people
who are blind, but the main recommendations for accessibility did not include technology and
focused on on-site modifications in the museum (e.g., increasing the contrast of signs, increasing
font size, and modifying light levels; [6]).
Augmented reality holds great potential to increase the experiences of people with low vision.
In several studies, augmented reality has been demonstrated to enhance activities such as
shopping [17], navigation [16], and climbing stairs [15]. However, how augmented reality can
assist and facilitate museum visits, has not been examined. As a first step in designing such a
system, we conducted interviews with low-vision participants to understand their unique visual
needs when visiting museums.
3. Method
We conducted semi-structured interviews to examine the assistive technologies and experiences
of visually impaired individuals in their everyday lives. Then, we focused our questions on their
previous encounters with museum visits and the various accessibility challenges that they had
encountered in such settings. Our goal was to provide potential solutions and recommendations
for improving the museum-going experiences for visually impaired visitors. We also collected
demographic information from each participant, including age, impairment, level of technological
proficiency, occupation, and visual acuity where possible. The list of participants and their details
is provided in Table 1. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using an open coding approach
[10].
Table 1
List of participants
# Age Visual Impairment Occupation Visual Acuity
1 25 Ocular Albinism Student -
2 23 Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) & Nystagmus Student -
3 25 Ocular Albinism Student 6/60
4 62 Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) pensioner 3/60
5 52 Childhood cataract mortgage -
consultant
6 58 Oculocutaneous albinism 20/25
7 47 Retinal degeneration 20/80
8 63 Oculocutaneous albinism pensioner 20/200
9 55 Retinal degeneration Human Resources -
10 28 Ocular Albinism & cataract Sound technician -
11 57 Marfan syndrome Housewife 20/32
4. Results
We note there were several challenges in the museums and almost half of the participants said
that they do not go to visit museums without help from friends and family. All participants
expressed their desire for the museum to be more accessible. In particular, participants wished
the museum would offer personal tour guides who could assist them in navigating the facility,
provide detailed and more accessible descriptions of the exhibits, and read aloud the explanatory
signs for each display. Below, we describe the main themes revealed in the interviews.
4.1. General accessibility in the museums for low vision
Museums are generally ill-prepared to accommodate the needs of visually impaired individuals,
as they lack braille text signs, speaking signs, and specially trained staff. The most used tool for
visually impaired visitors is the hearing handheld, which is available and designed for the public
in several, but not all museums. These handheld devices, provide prerecorded tours and focus on
providing information about the museum. For example, p3 said, “Most of the museums do not
have tools for the visually impaired, but sometimes they have audio guides which can also help
us.”
However, the audio tour device may not always be very helpful as it assumes that visitors
have visual capabilities, and therefore fails to provide information about the items on display and
a general overview of the exhibit. Moreover, it typically lacks directional information. and does
not assist in navigating through the museum's corridors.
4.2. Walking around the museums
Many participants described feeling anxious about walking in museums independently.
Participants said that it may be difficult for them to navigate and be oriented in an unknown and
complex location. In addition, participants attested that they fear of accidentally tipping over and
damaging expensive items on display. For example, P1 said “I’m afraid to walk alone in the
museum, I may break one of the items or fall and cause a mess.”. This fear is exacerbated when
the lighting in the museum is not suitable for their condition. For instance, a brightly lit
environment can be overwhelming for a person with albinism, whereas a very dimly lit space may
pose difficulties for someone with Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP). These examples illustrate the
challenges of accommodating low-vision visitors and creating an ideal lighting environment
across low vision conditions.
4.3. Visual complexity of museums
Several participants we interviewed expressed concern over the excessive visual stimulation
in museum exhibits, for example, some exhibits could include several small items displayed very
close to each other without any buffers. This hinders the ability of the visually impaired to
recognize objects and differentiate between them. Another factor that affects their experience is
the distance between the standing or viewing position and the objects on display. At times, this
distance can be quite far due to museum limitations, as buffer spaces are designed to restrict
visitors from touching or damaging the exhibited items. However, this affects the experience of
visually impaired individuals in the museum as it makes it more difficult for them to see the
exhibits. For example, P10 said, “There was a lot of instruments shoved together with others stuff,
it was hard to focus on one item to see it better.”
4.4. Assistive technologies in museums
The use of technology can be a powerful tool for people with visual impairments, and many of
our participants reported using a variety of devices to assist them when visiting museums. Among
these devices, the smartphone was the one mentioned most frequently used due to its versatility
and accessibility [3]. For example, visually impaired people often use their smartphone as a
magnifying glass to better view items. In the museum, visually impaired visitors may use their
smartphone to take pictures of objects, signs, or documents that are not clear enough for them to
see in the museum environment. They can then zoom in on the image to get a better
understanding of what they are looking at. However, some museums prohibit the use of
smartphones during the visit, which can limit the visitor's ability to fully explore and engage with
the exhibits.
Some of our participants suggested that museums could provide accessible information about
the exhibits for visually impaired visitors. This information could be downloaded to the visitor's
smartphone and would include images of the objects in the exhibitions as well as informative text.
By using Zoom, visitors would be able to explore the images and text on their own, without
requiring assistance from another person. This solution would provide a more autonomous and
inclusive experience for visually impaired visitors, allowing them to fully engage with the
museum exhibits. For example, P10 described the positive experience he had with an audio-visual
museum guide: “The museum [In Portugal] had audio and visual explanations in English and
Portuguese. Visitors could browse the explanations and listen to music using simple headphones.
The museum focused on the unique music of Portugal and used audio descriptions to complement
the visual exhibits” (P10).
5. Conclusions
Overall, technology has the potential to enhance the museum experience for visually impaired
visitors. By leveraging accessible digital tools, museums can create a more inclusive environment
that empowers visitors to explore and appreciate the exhibits on their own terms. Prior research
has pointed to solutions that focus on enhancing accessibility through tactile and audio
information, yet these solutions are not optimized to the needs of people with low vision, given
that they have remaining functional sight.
Our study reveals that accessibility challenges for low vision still prevail across cultural
heritage museums. Participants mentioned mobility related challenges caused by the layout of
objects and rooms in the museum as well as lighting conditions that are designed to enhance the
experience of sighted people and create dramatic experiences (e.g., dimly lit rooms or brightly lit
exhibits), but impair sight for low vision visitors. Although designing accessible spaces should be
a goal in the public sphere, it is unlikely that museums would redesign their exhibits or build new
accessible buildings. Moreover, the variety of low vision conditions means that it would be
virtually impossible to create an optimal design for all visual conditions. Instead, a better solution
would be to design a flexible and wearable solution, such as smart glasses, that would be
personalized to the needs of the low vision visitor.
In terms of accessibility to exhibits, participants mentioned the difficulty of seeing details and
the feeling of visual clutter that accompanies seeing exhibits. Participants wanted to be able to
see the artifacts details in situ and suggested a smartphone application with high-resolution
pictures of artifacts. However, even with high-resolution digital images, panning with Zoom
remains an accessibility challenge [12]. Moreover, as an experience it would mean looking at the
digital device with the image, rather than seeing the artifact better in situ. Augmenting details of
the artifact using augmented reality, may be a possible solution to enhance the visibility of
objects. In our next step of this research project, we will examine whether and how augmented
reality can assist people with low vision when touring a museum.
Figure 2: Person with low vision using the Microsoft HoloLens at the Hecht museum.
References
[1] Vassilios S. Argyropoulos and Charikleia Kanari. 2015. Re-imagining the museum through
“touch”: Reflections of individuals with visual disability on their experience of museum-
visiting in Greece. Alter 9, 2: 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2014.12.005
[2] Saki Asakawa, João Guerreiro, Dragan Ahmetovic, Kris M. Kitani, and Chieko Asakawa. 2018.
The Present and Future of Museum Accessibility for People with Visual Impairments. In
Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and
Accessibility (ASSETS ’18), 382–384. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3240997
[3] Sandra Birnstiel, Benedikt Steinmüller, Kerstin Bissinger, Simone Doll-Gerstendörfer, and
Stephan Huber. 2019. Gartenfreund: Exploring the Botanical Garden with an Inclusive App.
In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019 (MuC’19), 499–502.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3340764.3344446
[4] Luis Cavazos Quero, Jorge Iranzo Bartolomé, Seonggu Lee, En Han, Sunhee Kim, and Jundong
Cho. 2018. An Interactive Multimodal Guide to Improve Art Accessibility for Blind People. In
Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and
Accessibility (ASSETS ’18), 346–348. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3241033
[5] Verena R. Cimarolli, Kathrin Boerner, Mark Brennan-Ing, Joann P. Reinhardt, and Amy
Horowitz. 2012. Challenges faced by older adults with vision loss: A qualitative study with
implications for rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215511429162
[6] Jennifer Fortuna, Claire Harrison, Abigail Eekhoff, Candice Marthaler, Megan Seromik,
Stephanie Ogren, and Julia VanderMolen. 2023. Identifying Barriers to Accessibility for
Museum Visitors Who Are Blind and Visually Impaired. Visitor Studies 0, 0: 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2023.2168421
[7] Byron L. Lam, Sharon L. Christ, D. Diane Zheng, Sheila K. West, Beatriz E. Munoz, Bonnielin K.
Swenor, and David J. Lee. 2013. Longitudinal relationships among visual acuity and tasks of
everyday life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation study. Investigative ophthalmology & visual
science 54, 1: 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-10542
[8] Matteo Lombardi. 2018. 3D Modeling and “Relief-Printing” for a More Inclusive Fruition of
Cultural Heritage. In 10th International Symposium on the Conservation of Monuments in
the Mediterranean Basin: Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards and Sustainable Preservation,
Maria Koui, Fulvio Zezza and Dimitrios Kouis (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham,
555–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78093-1_60
[9] Kyle Rector, Keith Salmon, Dan Thornton, Neel Joshi, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2017. Eyes-
Free Art: Exploring Proxemic Audio Interfaces For Blind and Low Vision Art Engagement.
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3:
93:1-93:21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130958
[10] J. Saldaña. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications Inc.
Retrieved September 8,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6528042696351994555. doi:99.9999/woot07-
S422.
[11] N. Lee, Interview with bill kinder: January 13, 2005, Comput. Entertain. 3 (2005).
doi:10.1145/1057270.1057278.
[12] J. Scientist, The fountain of youth, 2009. Patent No. 12345, Filed July 1st., 2008, Issued Aug.
9th., 2009.
[13] B. Rous, The enabling of digital libraries, Digital Libraries 12 (2008). To appear.
[14] M. Saeedi, M. S. Zamani, M. Sedighi, A library-based synthesis methodology for reversible
logic, Microelectron. J. 41 (2010) 185–194.
[15] M. Saeedi, M. S. Zamani, M. Sedighi, Z. Sasanian, Synthesis of reversible circuit using cycle-
based approach, J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 6 (2010).
[16] M. Kirschmer, J. Voight, Algorithmic enumeration of ideal classes for quaternion orders, SIAM
J. Comput. 39 (2010) 1714–1747. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/080734467.
doi:10.1137/080734467.
[17] L. Hörmander, The analysis of linear partial differential operators. IV, volume 275 of
Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical
Sciences], Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1985. Fourier integral operators.
[18] L. H o
̈ rmander, The analysis of linear partial differential operators. III, volume 275 of
Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical
Sciences], Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1985. Pseudodierential operators.
[19] IEEE, Ieee tcsc executive committee, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Web Services, ICWS ’04, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2004, pp. 21–22.
doi:10.1109/ICWS.2004.64.
[20] TUG, Institutional members of the TEX users group, 2017. URL: http://www.tug.org/
instmem.html.
[21] R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, 2019. URL:
https://www.R-project.org/.
[22] S. Anzaroot, A. McCallum, UMass citation field extraction dataset, 2013. URL: http:
//www.iesl.cs.umass.edu/data/data-umasscitationfield.