As we work to increase diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility among museum audiences and in the workplace, we need to attend to the needs of neurodiverse visitors and employees.
Today we’re excited to launch a brand new guide designed to promote the inclusive design and management of nature-based settings.
Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., the nation’s leading institution for the deaf and hard of hearing, has published a report outlining what they call DeafSpace Guidelines that help design practitioners understand what to consider when designing spaces to be friendly to people with hearing impairments. Hansel Bauman, director of campus design and planning at Gallaudet, led the effort to create the guidelines. The resulting report describes five factors that impact the way in which people with hearing impairments interact with the built environment; space and proxemics, sensory reach, mobility and proximity, light and color, and acoustics.
Blog post on WordPress by Ian Ford
Sept 3, 2013
Accessibility has historically been focused on creating more inclusive products and spaces for people with mobility disabilities. However in recent years there has been more of a focus on how to address sensory issues (i.e. Deaf Space.) We recently came across this fascinating blog post by Ian Ford, who lays out some of the guiding principles he believes are necessary for “autistic space.”
Ford talks about 5 levels of accessibility, movement/ getting there, sense/ being there, architecture/orienting oneself, communication and agency/autonomy. Ford argues that the Americans with Disabilities act deals primarily with the first level of movement, being able to physically access all necessary parts of a space.
The level of “sense/being there” requires a space that is free of loud noises, bright lights and bold patterns and textures which can create sensory overload and hinder someone’s ability to “be there” in the space comfortably. Ford also discusses some of the ways that architectural spaces can be designed to support “orientation,” even without requiring users to read written language. “Communication” features can help users understand and make themselves understood in a space, and may include descriptions that explain how to use that space. “Agency and autonomy” can be supported by service and programming considerations. The blog post is worth a read. What do you think, how often do we consider “deep accessibility” that goes further than issues of mobility and movement/getting there?