by Cannelle Dewaeles at ALTO
In the previous two articles, we looked at audio description as an audio mediation solution for people who are blind or partially sighted, and the stages involved in its development. To conclude this series of articles, we’d like to look at a few good practices to adopt, both before and during the design of audio description. It’s an opportunity to think about who needs to be involved in the production chain, but also about the how audio description is planned on a broader scale of the visit, and even of the cultural establishment’s accessibility policy.
First of all, we feel it is essential to point out that mediation systems for visually impaired visitors cannot function independently and must be integrated into a broader approach of the site’s accessibility. This means, for example, providing in-house and on-site training for staff, making it easier for visitors to move around the site, adapting signage and, of course, maximising site accessibility.
It is also important to involve the right people for this type of project, if possible, right from the design stage. In the case of the Louvre Lens tour, the teams worked closely with audio description experts, writers and specialist associations, who were involved in selecting the works and key information to be included.
At the very least, this collaboration should take place during the test phase. We believe it is essential to involve visually impaired testers to ensure that the product meets the needs of these target audiences. At Alto, we work with associations of people who are blind and partially sighted, who systematically review our scripts and test our audio tours in situ in order to assess the following aspects:
- the level of description;
- the overall length of the tour and the length of our commentaries;
- tactile devices (handling);
- ease of movement and navigation along the tour route;
- the use of the device (is it intuitive and accessible to blind and partially sighted visitors?
- the overall experience (does it meet the requirements of a cultural leisure experience?);
Finally, talking about audio description also raises the question of the universal accessibility of mediation systems – and more generally of visitor itineraries. Universal accessibility is seen as an ideal towards which every cultural institution should strive. It’s defined as the fact of ‘offering, through various multi-sensory devices, access to content adapted to all audiences, whether they are physically, sensorially or mentally disabled, French-speaking or not, young or old, learned or neophyte’, in the words of the Ministry of Culture.
The introduction of facilities for visually impaired people is part of this approach, but it raises the following question: should we offer a specific facility for each type of disability, or should we think about a single solution adapted to all audiences?
While the choice is most often made in favour of a specific system (provision of an audio tour with audio description), the Musée de la Marine (Marine museum), which we met as part of the REACT project, has chosen to design a single tour accessible to all, incorporating media adapted to all audiences, including the blind and partially sighted people. For example, the tactile models and associated audio contents are designed primarily for the blind and partially sighted people, but are also intended for the non-visually-impaired visitors. The advantage of this inclusive approach is that it offers a more homogenous and inclusive experience for all visitor profiles, and avoids stigmatising visitors with a disability, who benefit from the same visiting facilities as non-disabled visitors. But one of its limitations concerns priority of access, and arises when the same device is offered to audiences who do not use it in the same way: while it is an optional and educational tool for audiences who are not visually impaired, it is an essential medium for blind and partially sighted people, although they do not have priority over its use.
Audio description, by mobilising the sense of hearing, therefore appears to be an effective solution for making cultural venues accessible to blind or partially sighted audiences, but it requires creative, editorial, committed and even militant choices to be made when developing it.