label

accessibility

Linked to 13 items

from: Accessibility and Inclusion (report)

As a heritage professional with extensive experience in museums and cultural/heritage institutions, Alicia reflects on the accessibilityimportance of making collective heritage accessible, drawing from examples like the Van Gogh Museum, where accessibility means accessibilityacknowledging the shared memory of Dutch people and owning a collective heritage.
from: Accessibility and Inclusion (report)

Alicia introduces a critical definition of “disabilities,” emphasizing the quoteimpact of design on diverse needs, considering factors such as the increasing numbers of people with disabilities and age-related disabilities, which can be permanent, temporary, or situational. Accessibility entails accessibilitybreaking the cycle of inaccessibility by making information, activities, and environments sensible, meaningful, and usable. It involves solutionincluding people with disabilities in every step of the process, fostering independence, and solutiontaking responsibility rather than assuming what it's like to have a disability. quoteDesign should cater to specific needs.
from: Accessibility and Inclusion (report)

During the Q&A session, Karl discussed his approach to managing budgets creatively, highlighting the challenge of challengeknowledge retention within specific individuals rather than integrating it into the overall working process. Regarding the concept of delinking collections, Alicia who is partially sighted, underscores the challenge of accessibilitytranslating colors into textures, a process that can vary significantly based on the specific hues involved.
from: Accessibility and Inclusion (report)

During our session, we reviewed several examples of accessibility considerations within different platforms. First, we examined NPO Start, focusing on features like the “tab” feature, language choices, and the overall framework of web development aimed at accessibility. Specific features discussed included a inclusioncontrast toggle for quiet or dark modes to accommodate users with color blindness and accessibilitylanguage adjustments to avoid using buzzwords (e.g., plus, start, max) that may be unclear to users. Additionally, we looked at issues with medium migration or integration, particularly in challengecombining television with website content, which led to an unclear identity and an overwhelming sense of clutter on the platform’s design choices. Next, we analyzed LI-MA, noting that itsinteresting-practiceorganization by last name alphabetically required users to know precisely what they were searching for, rather than allowing for serendipitous discovery. We also discussed the platformsneed for improved image descriptions to make images more informative rather than merely decorative. These examples highlighted the accessibilityimportance of thoughtful design choices and user-centered approaches in creating accessible digital experiences.
from: Accessibility and Inclusion (report)

Mapping together various considerations for inclusive design involves a holistic approach encompassing language use, navigation options catering to diverse preferences (e.g., search bars vs. tab and menus), considerations for accessibilitylow data accessibility, and inclusionbreaking down disciplinary boundaries to foster a more open platform. The discussion extends to the balance between anonymous participation and personalized features, exploring hybridity beyond traditional digital frameworks, and addressing diverse accessibility needs, including challengefinancial and cognitive aspects. The financial and cognitive aspects of design can sometimes pose challenges. For example, while using low-resolution images to cater to users with slower internet connections is beneficial for financial accessibility, it can inadvertently exclude visually impaired individuals who rely on clearer, more detailed images for accessibility purposes. An illustrative example is Martijn’s anecdote about his elderly mother navigating various types of media, highlighting the challenges posed by cognitive accessibility issues. This highlights the need to solutioncarefully balance different accessibility needs and find inclusive solutions that benefit a diverse range of users.
from: Accessibility and Inclusion (report)

Martijn’s group concentrated on identifying and addressing wayfinding and cognitive needs within digital platforms. They recognized that individuals visiting such platforms often have platformsspecific goals in mind, underscoring the reflectionimportance of designing public technology with a user-centric approach. This discussion underscored theaccessibilitysignificance of transparency in translating diverse content into accessible media, emphasizing the need tochallengeset boundaries and recognize our limitations. The group highlighted examples of successful integration of physical and digital spaces, drawing on inclusioncultural spaces in Belgium where a tread goes through the space as illustrative case studies.
from: Accessibility and Inclusion (report)

Jonas’s group explored accessibilityenhancing accessibility through language, emphasizing the role of poetry and user-friendly design in artistic expression. They discussed the challenges posed by challengecomplex and personalized artistic practices(i.e., very personal, constructed and hard to follow), advocating for solutiondifferent entry points and viewing language as a versatile tool for inclusivity. The conversation highlighted the need to platformsbalance simplicity and complexity, embracing plurality and enabling users to switch between modes seamlessly. The group questioned questionwho should take the lead in implementing these approaches.
from: Digital Space is... (report)

Angelique raised the question of questionhow accessibility solutions can be made bidirectional. Alice emphasized the opinionimportance of following a UX workflow that includes people from various roles—organizations, curators, artists, and especially a team of accessibility experts. Decisions need to come from a diverse team. Herman highlighted the desireneed for transparency in decision-making processes. Additionally, Angelique pointed out that interesting-practicetechno-centric solutions often fail, as evidenced by the Van Gogh museum example. Alice noted that the first step is always to ask, “What is needed?” Angelique suggested that opinionmatchmaking could be a starting point alongside addressing accessibility questions, emphasizing the importance of matching visitors with the right app or resources, as not everyone can be included in a one-size-fits-all approach. Futhermore, Genevra added that accessibilityaccess also involves sharing; for those without the means to travel, spaces can facilitate sharing through videos, descriptions, and other resources. Angelique questioned reflectionwhether people would be willing to pay for such accessand suggested different types of curatorship. She proposed a buddy system where people build bonds of trust and choose each other. Genevra stressed the importance of interesting-practicedesigning a format first, allowing modalities to develop from this framework through matchmaking. Teams could generate modalities and use the platform as a mediating tool. This approach could take various forms, such as encouraging users to put their phones away to engage more deeply.
from: Interactivity: the 7 scenarios of digital culture (report)

Bianca, Karl, and Florian envision a solutionfoundation where various scenarios can converge and contribute, creating a robust support system for makers. This foundation would serve as a bedrock for other initiatives, fostering a collaborative environment. The implementation of this foundation would involve a desirecoalition of cultural organizations, tech companies committed to ethical practices, and government bodies. To ensure the foundation is free and intentional, substantial funding from grants, public funds, and private donations would be required. solutionPartnerships with educational institutions and tech companies could also provide resources and expertise. A key feature of this foundation would be an desireon-site assistance team, a dedicated desk offering personalized help to makers, guiding them in transforming their ideas into tangible products or services. This team would provide accessibilityethical, free expertise, including suggestions and proposals around accessibility, self-hosting, and open-source software. Establishing clear protocols on accessibility would be essential, accessibilityensuring that all digital products and services are accessible to everyone. Inspired by the Belgian system, where interesting-practiceorganizations in Flanders can earn a special stamp if they meet specific criteria such as inclusivity (as Karl noted) and receive assistance in digitizing makers’ collections (as Hay added), users could subscribe to these protocols to receive both guidance and potential funding. Rather than centralizing everything on one platform, solutionthe foundation would operate through a network of fragmented yet interconnected services. This approach resembles a library or social service for digital culture, offering practical support to organizations at no cost. Starting from a more theoretical standpoint, quotethe foundation highlights the current lack of assistance for makers and proposes a more ethical and free support system.
from: Interactivity: the 7 scenarios of digital culture (report)

Nadia, Sondi, and Martijn explore the boundaries of online meeting spaces, considering how to connect people across different geographies and link cultural and non-cultural spaces to initiatives and ideas. They aim to facilitate digital connections that go beyond local bubbles, addressing the need to desirereach wider audiencesrather than just friends of friends. This scenario envisions solutionindexing spaces available for makers, allowing them to step outside their familiar circles and discover new cultural hubs. To achieve this, they propose an indexing platform where people can easily find cultural resources and spaces, thus desiresharing dormant resources with minimal effort. This approach can accessibilityhelp institutions reach new audiences by connecting with small initiatives through digital means. Florian suggested that such a platform could serve as an interesting case study, given the disappearance of small grassroots initiatives in Dutch culture over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, Lilian emphasized the importance of questioning reflectionwhether these connections should remain purely digital or adopt a hybrid model. Additionally, Martijn noted that this scenario challenges organizations to challengereconsider their role within the cultural scene. Hay further highlighted the value of DIY efforts and the necessity ofdesireallowing space for trial and error, as the current emphasis on professionalism leaves little room for experimentation and failure. Building on this, Florian pointed out the challengedifficulty unknown makers face in finding venues to showcase their work due to the many layers within the cultural sector. In response, Angelique added that challengeinstitutions also struggle to present unknown makers. Finally, Sondi stressed the desireneed for connections that benefit not just the well-known makers but also those who are emerging or lesser-known. quoteThis scenario offers a simple methodology for opening up cultural spaces and connecting diverse initiatives through digital means, helping both institutions and makers broaden their reach and impact within the cultural landscape.