Museums and the “Digital Curb Cut”

American Association of Museums (1996). Everyone’s Welcome: Universal Access in Museums (video). Washington DC: American Association of Museums.

Anable, S., & Alonzo, A. (2001). Accessibility Techniques for Museum Web Sites in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2001: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/anable/anable.html (The virtual museum tour created by the Dayton Art Institute demonstrated that multimedia and accessibility are not “incongruous” and can both be accommodated.)

Bain, K., Basson, S., Faisman, A., & Kanevsky, D. (2005). Accessibility, Transcription and Access Everywhere [Electronic version]. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3), 589-603.

Bowen, J. (2003). Disabled Access for Museum Websites. Paper presented at the WWW2003: The Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, Budapest, Hungary. (The results of Bowen’s accessibility study of 50 museum sites, primarily in the United Kingdom, showed that that web accessibility has not been fully considered in museums, unlike physical access issues.)

Bristo, M. et al. (2001). The Accessible Future. Washington DC: National Council on Disability. (This government report stressed the importance of individual accessibility advocacy to effect changes in institutional practices. The need for goals, objectives, methods and outcome criteria in accessible design are emphasized as well as the need for further study on the costs and benefits of accessibility and inaccessibility.)

Brown, S., & Gerrard, D. (2006). Squaring the Triangle: The Implications of Broadband for Access, Diversity and Accessibility in Museum Web Design in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/brown/brown.html. (The authors profess that multimedia can enhance accessibility for the disabled if the guiding principles and applied heuristics of accessible design are better understood.)

Brueggemann, B. J., White, L. F., Dunn, P. A., Heifferon, B., & Cheu, J. (2001). Becoming Visible: Lessons in Disability. College Composition and Communication, 52(3), 368-98.

Caldwell, B., Chisholm, W., Slatin, J., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (2006). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (Working Draft 27 April 2006). Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/.

Cameron, F. (2003). Digital Futures I: Museum Collections, Digital Technologies, and the Cultural Construction of Knowledge [Electronic version]. Curator, 46(3), 325-40.

Clark, J. (2001). All the Access Money Can Buy. A List Apart Retrieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.alistapart.com/articles/alltheaccess/.

Clark, J. (2005). @Media 2005: Simple facts about accessibility by Joe Clark. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/access/AtMedia2005AccessibilitySimpleFactsJoeClark

Clark, J. (2006). To Hell with WCAG 2. A List Apart Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2

Coburn, E. & Baca, M. (2004). Beyond the Gallery Walls: Tools and Methods for Leading End-Users to Collections Information. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 30(5), 14-19.

Creed, A. (2000). Olympics Site Discriminates Against the Blind. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from http://www.computeruser.com/news/00/08/29/news4.html

Davidson, B., Heald, C. L., & Hein, G. E. (1999). Increased Exhibit Accessibility through Multisensory Interaction (2nd ed.). London; New York: Routledge. (The benefits of multi-sensory learning in the gallery context are explored. The authors argued that the redundancy of information is of value to the general public as well as the disabled.)

Davies, M. (2006). Accessibility in Trouble 1: Flash. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/access/AccessibilityInTrouble1Flash

Design Interact (2005). Design Interact Site of the Week. Retrieved January 20, 2007, http://www.designinteract.com/sow/082205/

Devine, J., Gibson, E., & Kane, M. (2004). What Clicks: Electronic access to museum resources in Scotland and e-learning opportunties using museum resources. Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, University of Glasgow.

Di Blas, N., Paolini, P., Speron, M., & Bienert, A. (2003). Listen to a Website: Accessibilty (Beyond Current Standards) and a Market Opportunity. Paper presented at the International Cultural Heritage Informatics (ICHIM), Paris. (This project proposed an alternative to the visual bias in web interactivity by conceiving of the web as a dialogue or “oral interaction” between the user and their computer.)

Dierking, L., & Falk, J. H. (1998). Audience and Accessibility. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. (The conceptual accessibility of multimedia in a gallery context is considered from a constructivist learning perspective.)

Falk, J. H., & Sheppard, B. K. (2006). Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Fox, L., & Forloney, R. (2003). Increasing Accessibility for Everyone: Access and Cultural Institutions. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.nycmer.org/news/interpreter1_1.shtml. (The mission and history of the Museum Access Consortium (MAC) is presented).

Freed, G., & Rothberg, M. (2006). Accessible Digital Media: Design Guidelines for Electronic Publications, Multimedia and the Web. Beyond the Text Project Retrieved July 28, 2006, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/publications/adm.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.

Haapalainen, R., & Mäenpää, M. (2003). Multimodal Interfaces for Museum Audiences: A Collaborative Study Project of Finnish National Gallery and UIAH Media Lab. Paper presented at the International Cultural Heritage Informatics (ICHIM), Paris. (The MUMMI project took advantage of the synergy between the university media lab and museum curators to develop an innovative towards accessible multimedia design.)

Hamma, K. (2004). Becoming Digital. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 30(5), 11-13.

Heilmann, C. 18 Questions for Niqui Merret and Aral Balkan on Flash and Accessibility. Retrieved December 22, 2006, from http://www.wait-till-i.com/index.php?p=374.

Henry, S. L. (2006). Chapter 1: Understanding Web Accessibility. Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Hobbs, F. & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, Series CENSR-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Summary of demographic data from 2000 Census Report).

Hoffman, D., Grivel, E., & Battle, L. (2005). Designing software architectures to facilitate accessible Web applications. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3), 267-483.

Howell, C., & Porter, D. (2003). Re-assessing Practice: visual art, visually impaired people and the Web in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2003: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/howell/howell.html (This document details best practices for commissioning accessible web sites from a business perspective.)

Howell, J. (2006). Publicly Available Specification 78: Guide to Good Practice in Commissioning Accessible Websites. London, UK: British Standards Institution (BSI). Retrieved June 10 from http://www.bsi-global.com/ICT/PAS78/.

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (2004). Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and Libraries. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.imls.gov/resources/TechDig05/museums.htm

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (2002). Making Museums And Libraries More Accessible.

Jacobs, S. (2002). The Electronic Curb-Cut Effect, Developed in support of the World Bank Conference: Disability and Development. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm (The author provides a thorough history of the development of technologies originally designed to aid the disabled, yet proved to have significant latent benefits to all of society.)

Jaeger, P. T., & Bowman, C. A. (2005). Understanding Disability: Inclusion, Access, Diversity, and Civil Rights. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Kirk, J. (2001). Accessibility and New Technology in the Museum in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2001: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/kirk/kirk.html.

Lemon, G., & Cherim, M. (2006). The Great Accessibility Camp-Out. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from http://accessites.org/gbcms_xml/news_page.php?id=24#n24.

Library of Congress (2003). Part 3: Strategic Goals, Objectives and Measures. 23-49. Retrieved December 5, 2006 from http://www.loc.gov/about/history/pdfs/04-08StrategicPlan23-49.pdf.

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York, NY: New York University Press. (The social construction of disability is explored. The author is one of the early advocates of disability studies and argues, “the nation in general responds to disabled people with great ambivalence (p. 15).”)

Majewski, J. & Bunch, L. (1998). The expanding definition of diversity: accessibility and disability culture issues in museum exhibitions. Curator, 41(3).

Mall, D. (2007). Semantic Flash: Slippery When Wet. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://alistapart.com/articles/semanticflash.

Mankoff, J., Fait, H., & Juang, R. (2005). Evaluating accessibility by simulating the experiences of users with vision or motor impairments. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3), 505-17.

McGinnis, R. (1999). The Disabling Society (2nd ed.). London; New York: Routledge. (The author advises museums to take responsibility for providing access to disabled audiences, as she submits that the audience is much larger than typically assumed, and the results will benefit both museums and disabled persons.)

Milliman, R. E. (2002). Website Accessibility And The Private Sector: Disability Stakeholders Cannot Tolerate 2% Access! Information Technology and Disabilities, 8(2).

Mintz, A. (1998). Media and Museums: A Museum Perspective. In S. Thomas & A. Mintz (Eds.), The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum (pp. 19-34). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. (The author emphasizes the role of technology in providing flexible interfaces for the visually impaired. Yet she warns that the technology should be transparent, easy to learn and not interfere with the museum experience.)

Mirabella, V., Kimani, S., Gabrielli, S., & Catarci, T. (2004). Accessible e-learning material: A no-frills avenue for didactical experts. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 10(2), 165-80. (The authors posit that accessibility has been too narrowly construed to include only format and coding. They stress the need for didactic guidelines to aid content creators, as they actively participate in the design of educational learning experiences and should contribute to the accessibility development process.)

Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) (2001). Survey of provision for disabled users of museums, archives, and libraries (Executive Summary). (This influential report assesses the provision for web accessibility in UK museums, libraries and archives. Pioneers are identified and case studies presented in addition to statistics detailing use of accessibility consultants and staff members accountable for accessibility.)

National Federation for the Blind (NFB) (2000). National Federation of the Blind/America Online Accessibility Agreement. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from http://www.nfb.org/Tech/accessibility.htm.

National Research Council (1997). More Than Screen Deep: Toward Every-Citizen Interfaces to the Nation’s Information Infrastructure. Retrieved May 15, 2006 from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/screen/.

Nebraska Arts Council (n. d.). Accessibility Check List. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.nebraskaartscouncil.org/content/nacdocs/pdf/ADAChecklistForWeb.pdf

Nevile, L., & McCathie-Nevile, C. (2002). The Virtual Ramp to the Equivalent Experience in the Virtual Museum: Accessibility to Museums on the Web in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2002: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/nevile/nevile.html (The authors acknowledge that accessibility should be considered early in the design process, and the aim should to provide an equivalent experience that give users control regardless of the modality and assistive devices used.)

Nielsen, J. (2001). Beyond Accessibility: Treating Users with Disabilities as People. Retrieved July 16, 2006, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011111.html.

O’Hara, K. (2004). “Curb Cuts” on the Information Highway: Older Adults and the Internet. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 423-45. (The author posits that a paradigm shift is needed in order to accommodate the needs of the growing demographic of aging adults from the “baby boomer” generation. Developers of technology must learn to think differently in their design processes and discard outdated assumptions about this senior audience.)

Palmeri, J. (2006). Disability Studies, Cultural Analysis, and the Critical Practice of Technical Communication Pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 49-65. (Palmeri applies theories from disability studies to technical communications. Like Brueggemann, he argues that while usability studies are typically conducted after a product has been designed, tremendous insight could be added to the design if the needs of disabled users are considered from the beginning.)

Pekarik, A. (2003). Museum Web Sites. Curator, 46(3), 276-78.

Perry, G. M. (2003). Disabling America: the unintended consequences of government’s protection of the handicapped. Nashville: WND Books. (Perry himself is disabled, yet he vehemently argues the ADA has failed to realize its intentions. Instead, he posits: “the ADA actually nutures discrimation against the handicapped (p. 6).”)

Petrie, H., Badani, A., & Bhalla, A. (2005). Sex, lies and web accessibility: the use of accessibility logos and statements on e-commerce and financial websites. Paper presented at the Accessible Design in the Digital World Conference 2005, Dundee, Scotland.

Petrie, H., King, N., & Hamilton, F. (2005). Accessibility of Museum, Library and Archive Websites: the MLA Audit. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, City University, London. (This is the second and more extensive audit sponsored by the MLA in the UK. The findings reveal that the level of accessibility in museum, archives and libraries in the UK is not high. In fact, the average site “presents disabled user with nearly 216 potential accessibility stumbling blocks (p. 3).”

Poole, N. (2005). About MAGDA. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from http://magda.org.uk/pages/about-magda.php.

Powlik, J. & Karshmer, A. (2002). When Accessibility Meets Usability. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1(3), 217-22.

Quesenbery, W. (2004). The Politics of Design. Paper presented at the Aging by Design, Bentley College. (The author argues that user-centered design must become mainstream and not the exception.)

Regan, B. (2005). Best Practices for Accessible Flash Design. Macromedia, San Francisco, CA.

Regan, B. (2004). Web Accessibility and Design: A Failure of the Imagination. Paper presented at the Designing for the 21st Century, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Regan, B., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Accessible Flash. Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance (pp. 338-65). Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Reich, C. (2006). Universal Design of Computer Interactives for Museum Exhibitions in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/reich/reich.html (Reich presents the results of a visitor study conducted at the Museum of Science, Boston. The usability of computer interactives by persons with various disabilities is explored in this report. While the focus is on gallery exhibits, the study provides a useful context for usability testing in a museum setting.)

Richter, K. & Hellenschmidt, M. (2004). Multimodal Mediators to the World as it is Currently Designed. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from http://www.kai-richter.de/research/docs/RiHe_2004a.pdf.

Russell, M. (1998). Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract: a Warning from an Uppity Crip. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Salmen, J. (1998). Everyone’s Welcome: The Americans With Disabilities Act and Museums. Washington DC: American Association of Museums.

Second Story Interactive Studios (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://www.secondstory.com/index.php?page=collection&pid=79.

Sherwood, L. E. (1997). Moving from Experiment to Reality: Choices for Cultural Heritage Institutions and Their Governments. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. (Sherwood acknowledges that more attention needs to be paid to audience needs and use contexts in order to move web technology for museums beyond an experimental approach.)

Shneiderman, B. (2002). Leonardo’s Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (The author argues persistently for user-centered design in technology development. He points out that meeting human needs and delivering user satisfaction can best be achieved through adaptable interfaces that empower users of diverse abilities.)

Sliwa, C. (2006). Accessibility Issue Comes to a Head. Computerworld Retrieved July 28, 2006, from http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=111219 (The lawsuit against Target Corporation for an inaccessible web site.)

Sloan, D., Dickinson, A., McIlroy, N., & Gibson, L. (2006). Evaluating the Usability of Online Accessibility Information. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from http://www.dmag.org.uk/resources/design_articles/usableaccessibilityadvice.asp

Spollen, M. (n.d.). Text-only is not accessible. Retrieved April 3, 2006, http://infocentre.frontend.com/infocentre/articles/textonlyisnotaccessible.html

Streten, K. (2000). Honoured Guests – Towards a Visitor Centred Web Experience in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2000: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2000/papers/streten/streten.html (Streten argues that a museum web site must be responsive to diverse visitor needs. She concludes: “for museums the imperative to be accessible and understandable is stronger now than ever before.”)

Teather, L. (1998). A Museum is a Museum is a Museum.Or Is It?: Exploring Museology and the Web in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 1998: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published at http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/teather/teather_paper.html (Like Streten, Teather emphasizes the central importance of visitor research to “web museology.” She laments the lack of usability testing of web sites in the museum community.)

Thatcher, J., Burns, M., Heilmann, C., Henry, S. L., Kirkpatrick, A., Lauke, P., et al. (2006). Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Urban, M., & Burks, M. I. (2006). Chapter 14: Introduction to WCAG 2.0. Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. (pp. 459-75). Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Thirty-Something (Million): Should They Be Exceptions? [Electronic version] Human Factors, 32(4), 242-50. Retrieved on May 20, 2006 from http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/30_some/30_some.htm (Vanderheiden merges disability studies, demographics and human factors research in this well argued position paper. The author is a researcher at the Trace Center, and he is one of the editors of the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. He argues that the most significant cost for accessibility is building a knowledgebase of accessible design principles.)

Waldrop, J. & Stern, S. M. (2003). Disability Status: 2000: Census 2000 Brief. United States Census 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. (Demographic statistics focused on persons with disabilities and the graying of America.)

Watkins, M. (2007). WGBH Access Division Creates “CC for Flash” to Simplify Captioning for Adobe Flash Technology: Accessibility and Search Enhanced by Free Tool; Easy-to-Embed Flash-Based Media Player also Available. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/news/ccforflash.html

Weil, S. E. (1996). Museums for the New Millenium: A Symposium for the Museum Community. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. (Various speakers presented illuminating musings on the future of museums. The open discussions at the end of the sessions are also documented, and they often reveal important questions that are very relevant today.)

World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative (1999). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/.