While it is important to incorporate accessibility throughout the process of developing an online exhibition, the work with accessibility is not over once the exhibition is launched. As described by Rieger et al. (2019), inclusion in museums is not a product but an ongoing complex process of critical reflection, making mistakes, revisiting decisions, and asking questions. This has become evident during the process of designing and evaluating the prototype. The knowledge required to develop fulfilling and accessible online exhibitions stretches over numerous different domains. And as stated previously, it will most likely not be possible to include participants from all possible visitor groups during the actual development process. Hence, there is always more to learn about the visitors and there are always areas of the design that may be improved.
Further, technologies and research on online exhibitions, learning, and accessibility are continuously developed, and trends in society and museums change. For example, a new version of the WCAG, WCAG 2.2, is expected to be released during 2021 (W3C WAI, 2021b), and a draft for WCAG 3.0 is already in process (W3C WAI, 2021a). This means that the conditions and requirements for accessible learning in online exhibitions are constantly evolving. Hence, strategies and plans for accessibility must be integrated within the organization to reflect these changes. Further, employees must receive continuous training in how to deliver accessible solutions, to ensure that the museum possess the necessary skills and resources.
Limitations
This study focuses on the design of accessible online exhibitions. However, it is important to be aware that the results are based on a sample of people with highly personal abilities, preferences, and
characteristics. The involvement of other participant groups may have generated other insights on how to design for accessibility in online exhibitions. Further, it is important to remember that the study explores online exhibitions in a Swedish context. Museum employees and visitors in other parts of the world may approach and view online exhibition differently compared to the participants in this study.
Another possible limitation is self-selection bias. Though the recruitment strategy focused on reaching a specific audience, participants themselves volunteered to participate in the study. Since participants may choose to volunteer based on various personal motives, samples based on voluntary participation may not necessarily represent the wider population (Cohen et al., 2018). The sample may also have been impacted by the fact that recruitment and participation were carried out online, which requires that participants possess sufficient levels of computer and digital literacy. Online participation may also have impacted how participants with visual impairment perceived and evaluated the prototype.
Results from a study on methods for design evaluation suggest that tactile paper prototypes help participants with visual impairment create a better overview of a design solution in comparison to high-fidelity prototypes, and that local tests are preferred over remote test (Miao et al., 2016). Hence, more research is needed to cover additional user groups, design strategies and geographical and cultural contexts.
Conclusion
As museums move towards an increased digital presence, the need to ensure that their digital services are equally accessible grows. This design study aims to understand how museums can design more accessible learning experiences in a digital context, by reshaping their design process and
organizational procedures. The research ties together a user-centered process with insights from design processes for accessible design, learning theories, and guidelines for web accessibility. Further, it provides an example of how the Universal Design for Learning-framework can benefit the design of museum exhibitions in a digital context. By involving stakeholder from the museum, as well as visitors with a wide range of needs, preferences, and abilities, I have been able to land on four fundamental principles for the design of accessible online exhibitions. First, museums need to ensure that their online exhibitions are physically and sensory possible to access, by ensure that visitors are able to perceive, process, and navigate the content. Second, information should be presented on the right level of comprehension and by using appropriate communicational means and structural layout, to support equal understanding of the content. Third, to ensure equal engagement, online exhibitions should ensure that visitors are able to experience, connect, and interact with the content based on their own needs and preferences. Last, an accessible design process requires that the organization has the resources, knowledge, and priorities required to establish internal practices that promote accessibility throughout the design process. Be aware that the guidelines are not meant to replace frameworks for legal requirements such as the WCAG guidelines. However, unlike the general guidelines of the WCAG, these guidelines are developed specifically for a museum context. Hence, my hope is that the guidelines can support museums in their design process, by highlighting areas that are of particular importance when designing online exhibitions.
However, the guidelines proposed by this study should not be seen as final or static. Instead, they may be continuously adapted and updated as museums learn more about the users and the context. Again, inclusion is a complex process that requires continuous efforts (Rieger et al., 2019). This study has merely scratched the surface of the considerations needed to design equally accessible online exhibitions. Nevertheless, my hope is that it can help others identify areas for future research, and motivate them to contribute to the body of knowledge needed to ensure that the unique learning experiences of museums are accessible for all.
Reference list
Aizpurua, A., Arrue, M., & Vigo, M. (2013). Uncovering the role of expectations on perceived web accessibility. Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS 2013, May 2014, 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513383.2513411
Antoniou, A., Lepouras, G., & Vassilakis, C. (2013). Methodology for design of online exhibitions.
DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 33(3), 158–167.
https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.33.4615
Argyropoulos, V. S., & Kanari, C. (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
Barbieri, L., Bruno, F., & Muzzupappa, M. (2018). User-centered design of a virtual reality exhibit for archaeological museums. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 12(2), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0414-z
Begriplig text. (2019). 19 råd för att skriva begriplig. Dyslexiförbundet.
Begripsam. (2020). Svenskarna med funktionsnedsättning och internet 2019. 1–112.
http://www.begripsam.se/internet/rapporter-2/
Bennett, R. (2019). Object label quality and label readership in small museums. International Journal of Arts Management, 21(3), 42–56.
Bertalya, B., Prihandoko, P., Oktavina, R., & Valentine, V. (2014). Integration of virtual reality and web-based application in development of digital songket museum. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 9(11), 2039–2044.
Biedermann, B. (2017). ‘Virtual museums’ as digital collection complexes. A museological perspective using the example of Hans-Gross-Kriminalmuseum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 32(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2017.1322916
Blunden, J. (2017). The Sweet Spot? Writing for a Reading Age of 12. Curator, 60(3), 291–309.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12205
Bonis, B., Vosinakis, S., Andreou, I., & Panayiotopoulos, T. (2013). Adaptive virtual exhibitions.
DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 33(3), 183–198.
https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.33.4604
Boot, F. H., Owuor, J., Dinsmore, J., & Maclachlan, M. (2018). Access to assistive technology for people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62(10), 900–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12532
Bowen, Jonathan. (2000). The virtual museum. Museum International No. 205, 52(1), 4–7.
British Standards Institute. (2005). Design management systems. Managing inclusive design. Guide.
vol BS 7000-6:2005.
Brumana, R., Oreni, D., Caspani, S., & Previtali, M. (2018). Virtual museums and built environment:
Narratives and immersive experience via multi-temporal geodata hub. Virtual Archaeology Review, 9(19), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2018.9918
Carreras, C., & Mancini, F. (2014). A story of great expectations: Past and present of online/virtual exhibitions. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 34(2), 87–96.
https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.34.6749
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org Chen, H. X., & Chou, W. H. (2020). Exploratory Design Research for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Visitor in Exhibitions. Design Journal, 23(3), 395–417.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1744257
Chick, A. (2018). Improving Intellectual Access in Temporary Exhibitions for Sight Loss Visitors Through Co-creation and Co-assessment. Design Journal, 21(4), 561–582.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2018.1472441
Ch’ng, E., Cai, S., Leow, F. T., & Zhang, T. E. (2019). Adoption and use of emerging cultural technologies in China’s museums. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 37, 170–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.11.016
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education. In Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The Principles of Universal Design.
https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm
Cooke, M., & Buckley, N. (2008). Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market research.
International Journal of Market Research, 50(2), 267–292.
https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000208
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic
MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, MindTrek 2011, March 2014, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (2016). Official Journal of the European Union, L 327, 1–15.
Dirksen, J. (2016). Design for how People Learn (2nd ed.). New Riders.
Dooley, C. M. M., & Welch, M. M. (2014). Nature of Interactions Among Young Children and Adult Caregivers in a Children’s Museum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(2), 125–132.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0601-x
Englund, H., & Sundin, M. (2008). Tillgängliga webbplatser i praktiken. Jure Förlag AB.
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1
European Commission. (2011). Commission recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation. 1–47.
European Commission. (2017). Commission decision for setting up the expert group on digital cultural heritage and Europeana. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
European Commission. (2018). European Commission report on Cultural Heritage: Digitisation, Online Accessibility and Digital Preservation 2015-2017. 70. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/news/european-commission-report-cultural-heritage-digitisation-online-accessibility-and-digital
European commission. (2019). Cooperation on advancing digitisation of cultural heritage.
European Commission. (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI ) 2020 United Kingdom About the DESI.
European Telecommunications Standards Institute. (2018). Harmonised European Standard EN 301 549 V2.12 (2018-08) - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services. 2, Page 40-46.
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/02.01.02_60/en_301549v020102p.
Falk, J., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1997). The Effect of Visitors’ Agendas on Museum Learning.
Curator, 41(2), 106–120.
Foley, A. (2011). Exploring the design, development and use of websites through accessibility and usability studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(4), 267–391.
http://www.editlib.org/p/37621/
Foley, A., & Ferri, B. (2012). Technology for people, not disabilities: Ensuring access and inclusion.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 192-200.
Forsberg, J. (2017). Skriv för din målgrupp: Tips för träffsäkra texter. Morfem.
Fristrup, T., & Grut, S. (2016). Lifelong learning for active ageing in Nordic museums; archives and street art. Studies in the Education of Adults, 48(2), 210–224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2016.1219486
Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (2001). Development of an informal learning opportunities assay. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 569–587.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690116959
Glaser, M., Garsoffky, B., & Schwan, S. (2009). Narrative-based learning: Possible benefits and problems. Communications, 34(4), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM.2009.026 Prop. 2016/17:188. Nationellt mål och inriktning för
funktionshinderspolitiken. https://www.regeringen.se/49aa12/contentassets/0571a7504d4942829 2a6ab114e4b0263/nationellt-mal-och-inriktning-for-funktionshinderspolitiken-prop-2016-17_188.pdf
Gran, A. B., Lager Vestberg, N., Booth, P., & Ogundipe, A. (2019). A digital museum’s contribution to diversity–a user study. Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(1), 58–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2018.1497528
Grogan, D., & Ruzik, R. (2000). Walking the Walk: Universal Design on the Web. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 45–49.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/016264340001500307
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
Gutwill, J. P. (2018). Science Self-Efficacy and Lifelong Learning: Emerging Adults in Science Museums. Visitor Studies, 21(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2018.1503875 Hamilton, I. (2018). A Practitioner Reflection on Accessibility in Virtual Reality Environments. The
Computer Games Journal, 7(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869-018-0061-z
Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: controversies and contexts.
SAGE Publishing.
Hård af Segerstad, Y., Kasperowski, D., Kullenberg, C., & Howes, C. (2017). Studying Closed Communities On-line: Digital Methods and Ethical Considerations beyond Informed Consent and Anonymity. In M. Zimmer & K. Kinder-Kurlanda (Eds.), Internet research ethics for the social age: new challenges, cases, and contexts (pp. 213–225). Peter Lang.
Hassanzadeh, M., & Navidi, F. (2010). Web site accessibility evaluation methods in action: A comparative approach for ministerial web sites in Iran. Electronic Library, 28(6), 789–803.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011093499
Henry, S. L. (2007). Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design. Lulu.com.
Henry, S. L., Abou-Zahra, S., & Brewer, J. (2014). The Role of Accessibility in a Universal Web.
Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference (W4A ’14), 192.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2596695.2596719
Hollinworth, N., Allen, K., Hwang, F., Minnion, A., & Kwiatkowska, G. (2016). Interactive sensory objects for and by people with learning disabilities. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 9(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-2014/cgp/v09i01/21-38
Howell, R., & Chilcott, M. (2013). A sense of place: Re-purposing and impacting historical research evidence through digital heritage and interpretation practice. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 8, 165–177. https://doi.org/10.35638/ijih.2013..8.017
Hutchinson, R., & Eardley, A. F. (2021). Inclusive museum audio guides: ‘guided looking’ through audio description enhances memorability of artworks for sighted audiences. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2021.1891563
Hylland, O. M. (2017). Even better than the real thing? Digital copies and digital museums in a digital cultural policy. Culture Unbound, 9(1), 62–84. https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.179162 International Council of Museums. (2017). The Statutes of the International Council of Museums.
https://doi.org/10.4000/jso.1216
International Council of Museums. (2020). Museums, museum professionals and COVID-19. 1–22.
https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report-Museums-and-COVID-19.pdf
International Organization for Standardization. (2011). Ergonomics: general approach, principles and concepts (ISO/DIS Standard No. 26800).
Johansson, S. (2019). Begripsams metoder och metoderna vi använt i projektet Begriplig Text.
Johnson, J. (2018). Sensory: Please Touch the Art. Art Education, 71(1), 12–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1389580
Katz, J. E., & Halpern, D. (2015). Can virtual museums motivate students? Toward a constructivist learning approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 776–788.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9563-7
Kim, J., You, J., & Yeon Park, S. (2016). Adult learning for social change in museums: An
exploration of sociocultural learning approaches to community engagement. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 22(2), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971416672328
Kim, S. (2018). Virtual exhibitions and communication factors. Museum Management and Curatorship, 33(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2018.1466190
Kim, S., & Hong, S. (2020). How Virtual Exhibition Presentation Affects Visitor Communication and Enjoyment: An Exploration of 2D versus 3D. Design Journal, 23(5), 677–696.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1806580
Kjeldsen, A. K., & Jensen, M. N. (2015). When words of wisdom are not wise. A study of accessibility in museum exhibition texts. Nordisk Museologi, 1, 91.
https://doi.org/10.5617/nm.3002
Knochel, A., Hsiao, W.-H., & Pittenger, A. (2018). Touching to See: Tactile Learning, Assistive Technologies, and 3-D Printing. Art Education, 71(3), 7–13.
https://doi.org/10.1162/016228705774889628
Krug, S. (2010). Rocket surgery made easy: The-do-it yourself guide to finding and fixing usability problems. New Riders.
Krug, S. (2014). Don’t make me think, Revisited: A common sense approach to Web and mobile usability. New Riders.
Kulturdepartementet [Swedish Ministry of Culture]. (2016). Kultur för alla – inget hinder.
Kumar, K. L., & Owston, R. (2016). Evaluating e-learning accessibility by automated and student-centered methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 263–283.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9413-6
Leporini, B., & Norscia, I. (2008). “Fine Tuning” image accessibility for museum web sites. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 14(19), 3250–3264.
Lewthwaite, S. (2014). Web accessibility standards and disability: Developing critical perspectives on accessibility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1375–1383.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.938178
Li, J., Tigwell, G., & Shinohara, K. (2021). Accessibility of High-Fidelity Prototyping Tools. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), May.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445520
Lin, C. L., Chen, S. J., & Lin, R. (2020). Efficacy of virtual reality in painting art exhibitions
appreciation. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(9), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093012 Lisbon City Council. (2020). The cultural participation of people with disabilities or impairments:
how to create an accessibility plan.
https://informacoeseservicos.lisboa.pt/fileadmin/espacos/ficheiros/Plano_de_Acessibilidade_Vin gles.pdf
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2007). Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology. The MIT Press.
Mace, R., Hardie, G., & Place, J. (1996). Accessible Environments: Toward Universal Design. The Center for Universal Design. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/ACC Environments.pdf
MacFadden, B. J., Dunckel, B. A., Ellis, S., Dierking, L. D., Abraham-Silver, L., Kisiel, J., & Koke, J.
(2007). Natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. In BioScience (Vol. 57, Issue 10, pp. 875–882). https://doi.org/10.1641/B571010
Madsen, K. M., & Jensen, J. F. (2021). Learning through exploration at museum exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 36(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2020.1803115
Mateos-Rusillo, S. M., & Gifreu-Castells, A. (2017). Museums and online exhibitions: a model for analysing and charting existing types. Museum Management and Curatorship, 32(1), 40–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2015.1118644
McQuiggan, S. W., Rowe, J. P., Lee, S., & Lester, J. C. (2008). Story-based learning: The impact of narrative on learning experiences and outcomes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 5091 LNCS, 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_56
Mesquita, S., & Carneiro, M. J. (2016). Accessibility of European museums to visitors with visual impairments. Disability and Society, 31(3), 373–388.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1167671
Miao, M., Pham, H. A., Friebe, J., & Weber, G. (2016). Contrasting usability evaluation methods with blind users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 15(1), 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0378-8
Micoli, L. L., Caruso, G., & Guidi, G. (2020). Design of digital interaction for complex museum collections. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(2), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4020031
Mujtaba, T., Lawrence, M., Oliver, M., & Reiss, M. J. (2018). Learning and engagement through natural history museums*. Studies in Science Education, 54(1), 41–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1442820
Mylonopoulou, V., Weilenmann, A., Torgersson, O., & Jungselius, B. (2020). Searching for Empathy.
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420125
Myndigheten för delaktighet [Swedish Agency for Participation] (n.d.). Lagar och regler. Retrieved August 25, 2021, from https://www.mfd.se/verktyg/lagar-och-regler-om-tillganglighet/
Myndigheten för digital förvaltning [Swedish Agency for Digital Government] (n.d.). Lagkrav.
Retrieved August 25, 2021, from https://webbriktlinjer.se/lagkrav/
Myndigheten för kulturanalys [Swedish Agency for Cultural Policy Analysis]. (2014). Vem besöker de centrala museerna ?
Myndigheten för kulturanalys [Swedish Agency for Cultural Policy Analysis]. (2017). Kulturvanor:
Socioekonomiska analyser och tidstrender.
National Museums of World Culture. (2016). Årsredovisning 2016.
National Museums of World Culture. (2017). Årsredovisning 2017.
National Museums of World Culture. (2019). Årsredovisning 2019.
Network of European Museum Organisations. (2021). Follow-up survey on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on museums in Europe Final Report.
https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/NEMO_documents/NEMO_COVID19_Report_12.05.2020.pdf
NISE Network. (2007). Universal Design Guidelines for Public Programs in Science Museums.
https://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files/UniversalDesignGuidelinesPrograms_Guide_May10.p df
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. In Interactions (REVISED AN, Vol. 15, Issue 2).
Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1145/1340961.1340979
O’Neil, M. (2008). Advancing Museum Practice. In J. Dodd, R. Sandell, D. Jolly, C Jones (Eds.) Rethinking Disability Representation in Museums and Galleries (pp. 28-31). RCMG, University of Leiceste.
Palombini, A. (2017). Storytelling and telling history. Towards a grammar of narratives for Cultural Heritage dissemination in the Digital Era. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 24, 134–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.10.017
Parry, R., & Williams, M. (2007). How shall we label our exhibit today? Applying the principles of on-line publishing to an on-site exhibition. Proceedings of Museums and the Web: The International Conference for Culture and Heritage., 18–27.
https://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/parry/parry.html
Persson, H., Åhman, H., Yngling, A. A., & Gulliksen, J. (2014). Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—
historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(4), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z
Petrie, H., King, N., & Weisen, M. (2005). The accessibility of Museum Web Sites: Results From An English Investigation And International Comparisons. In J. Trant & D. Bearman (Eds.),
Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings. Archives & Museum Informatics.
http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/petrie/petrie.html
Pisoni, G., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Gijlers, H., & Tonolli, L. (2021). Human-centred artificial intelligence for designing accessible cultural heritage. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 11(2), 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11020870
Power, C., Freire, A. P., Petrie, H., & Swallow, D. (2012). Guidelines are only half of the story:
Accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the Web. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, May, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207736
Previtali, M. (2019). A virtual logbook for the documentation of a continuously changing archaeological site: The san clemente site in Albenga (Italy). Virtual Archaeology Review, 10(21), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2019.11916
Pulh, M., & Mencarelli, R. (2013). Web 2.0: Is the Museum-Visitor Relationship Being Redefined ? International Journal of Arts Management, 43.
Purkis, H. (2017). Making digital heritage about people’s life stories. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(5), 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1190392
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., & Daley, S. G. (2013). Providing Access to Engagement in Learning: The Potential of Universal Design for Learning in Museum Design. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12030
Ravelli, L. (2006). Museum Texts. Communication Frameworks. Routledge.
Rieger, J., Kessler, C., & Strickfaden, M. (2019). Doing Dis/ordered Mappings: Shapes of Inclusive Spaces in Museums. Space and Culture. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331219850442
Rocha, J. N., Massarani, L., de ABREU, W. V., Inacio, L. G. B., & Molenzani, A. O. (2020).
Investigating accessibility in latin american science museums and centers. Anais Da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 92(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020191156
Rømen, D., & Svanæs, D. (2012). Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11(4), 375–385.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0259-3
Rose, D., & Gravel, J. W. (2010). Universal Design for Learning. International Encyclopedia of Education, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00719-3
Rose, D., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0062-8
Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P., & Arango, J. (2015). Information Architecture: For the Web and Beyond (4th ed.). O’Reilly Media.
Ruiz, B., Pajares, J. L., Utray, F., & Moreno, L. (2011). Design for all in multimedia guides for museums. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1408–1415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.044
Salmi, H., Vainikainen, M. P., & Thuneberg, H. (2015). Mathematical thinking skills, self-concept and learning outcomes of 12-year-olds visiting a mathematics science centre exhibition in Latvia and Sweden. Journal of Science Communication, 14(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.14040203 Schweibenz, W. (1998). The ‘“virtual museum”’: New perspectives for museums to present objects
and information using the internet as a knowledge base and communication system.
Internationalen Symposiums Für Informationswissenschaft, November, 185–200.
http://www.informationswissenschaft.org/wp-content/uploads/isi/isi1998/14_isi-98-dv-schweibenz-saarbruecken.pdf
Shaby, N., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Tal, T. (2019). A student’s-eye view: What 4th grade students describing their visit to a science museum recall as significant. Research in Science Education, 49(6), 1625–1645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9669-4
Shakespeare, T. (2008). Disability, Normality, and Difference. In J. Cockburn & M. Pawson (Eds.), Challenges in Obstetrics and Gynecology (Vol. 27427, pp. 51–59). Springer Verlag.
Sharpe, H., Preece, J., & Rogers, Y. (2019). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Shimray, S. R., & Ramaiah, C. K. (2015). Design and development of an online exhibition on the Tangkhul tribe festivals. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 35(2), 124–
131. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.35.2.8396
Shinohara, K., Bennett, C. L., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2016). How designing for people with and without disabilities shapes student design thinking. ASSETS 2016 - Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 229–237.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982158
Smithsonian Accessibility Program. (2012). Smithsonian Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition Design.
https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/publications/Smithsonian Guidelines for accessible design.pdf
Sorrell, M., Norton, D., McAdams, J., Winterling, R., & Dipple, K. (2017). Creating an Online Scientific Art Exhibit Formatted for People with a Visual Impairment. Journal of Web Librarianship, 11(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2017.1300788
Stewart, T. S., & Marcketti, S. B. (2012). Textiles, dress, and fashion museum website development:
Strategies and practices. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(5), 523–538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.738137
Subramanyam, R., Weisstein, F. L., & Krishnan, M. S. (2010). User participation in software development projects. Communications of the ACM, 53(3), 137–141.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1666420.1666455
Suwannawut, N. (2020). Conceptual Frameworks for Design and Accessibility: The Design of an Online Learning System. In S. L. Gronseth & E. M. Dalton (Eds.), Universal Access Through Inclusive Instructional Design (pp. 17–24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429435515
Sveriges Museer. (2020). Museibesöken 2020: 124 museer om besöken 2020.
SFS 2001:526. Förordning om de statliga myndigheternas ansvar för genomförande av funktionshinderspolitiken. Socialstyrelsen. https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2001:526
SFS 2007:1185. Förordning med instruktion för Statens museer för världskultur. Kulturdepartementet https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2007:1185
SFS 2008:567. Diskrimineringslag. Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet.
https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2008:567
SFS 2009:600. Språklag. Kulturdepartementet. https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2009:600 SFS 2017:563. Museilag. Kulturdepartementet. http://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2017:563 SFS 2018:1937. Lag om tillgänglighet till digital offentlig service. Infrastrukturdepartementet.
https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2018:1937
Socialstyrelsen [Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare]. (n.d.). Funktionsnedsättning.
Funktionshinder. In Socialstyrelsens termbank. Retrieved August 25, 2021, from https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/stod-i-arbetet/funktionshinder/
Svenska RP-föreningen [The Swedish RP Association]. (2013). Vad är RP (Retinitis Pigmentosa)?
https://retinanytt.se/vad-ar-rp-retinitis-pigmentosa/
Taffe, S., & Kelly, M. (2020). Exchanging Expertise across Cultures and Time: Participatory Design Approaches for Creating Community Museums. Design Journal, 23(5), 715–734.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1807717
United Nations Population Fund, & HelpAge International. (2012). Ageing in the Twenty-First Century: A Celebration and a Challenge. file:///C:/Users/Tove/AppData/Local/Temp/UNFPA-Report (1).pdf
Vavoula, G., & Mason, M. (2017). Digital exhibition design: boundary crossing, Intermediary Design Deliverables and processes of consent. Museum Management and Curatorship, 32(3), 251–271.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2017.1282323
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, W3C World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation 05 June 2018. https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (2021a). WCAG 3 Introduction.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (2021b). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/#versions
W3C World Wide Web Consortium. (1997, April 7). World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Launches International Web Accessibility Initiative [Press release]. https://www.w3.org/Press/WAI-Launch.html
Wang, L., Zhao, H. sen, Chen, W., Yang, C. L., & Meng, X. X. (2011). O3D-based personal museum designing system in virtual learning environment. International Journal of Continuing
Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 21(1), 55–71.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2011.039694
Weiland, I. (2015). An exploration of Hispanic mothers’ culturally sustaining experiences at an informal science center. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 84–106.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21190
World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
World Report on Child Injury Prevention.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42407/9241545429.pdf
World Health Organization. (2011). Summary World Report On Disability. World Health, 1–24.
www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html%0Ahttp://www.larchetoronto.org/w ordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/launch-of-World-Report-on-Disability-Jan-27-121.pdf Ying, Z., Yuhui, Y., Huifang, C., Mo, C., & Jianping, Z. (2019). The development and performance
evaluation of digital museums towards second classroom of primary and secondary school - Taking Zhejiang Education Technology Digital Museum as an example. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(2), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i02.7897
Yusif, S., Soar, J., & Hafeez-Baig, A. (2016). Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 94, 112–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.07.004