6. How to collaborate with disabled people

Access is not solely the responsibility of learning and/or engagement teams, visitor services, or curators – it is sector-wide work. Everyone involved in exhibitions, from leadership to architects, contractors, designers, artists, and technicians, needs to understand how their role shapes access. For real change to take root, organisations must invest in training, shared learning, and cultural shifts across all levels of staff. Similarly, where there is recognition that something is not right, staff in front line roles must be empowered and enabled to challenge those in power in order to enact access measures. 

The sector is rich in toolkits, guidelines, and best-practice documents, but they are not always known about or acted on. The key is not to apply everything mechanically, but to interpret guidance through the lens of your own context: your building, audience, collection, and community. Tailoring approaches ensures that accessibility becomes meaningful and achievable. 

Access clashes: where measures that support one group inadvertently create barriers for another.  

Examples: 

• Brighter lighting improves visibility but may increase sensory overwhelm. 

• Strong scents for multisensory design may exclude visitors with chemical sensitivities. 

Solutions: 

• Offer timed sessions with different environmental conditions. 

• Provide clear scheduling information. 

• Allow choice wherever possible. 

• Communicate transparently. 

The goal is not perfection, but clarity and flexibility. 

Co-design is not: 

• A single consultation meeting. 

• Asking for feedback after decisions are made. 

• Token representation on an advisory board. 

Co-design may include: 

• Paid disabled consultants at concept stage. 

• Prototype testing with disabled audiences. 

• Shared authorship of interpretation. 

• Budget lines for iterative revision. 

You may wish to link this to community engagement toolkits and clarify: 

• Payment expectations. 

• Access riders. 

• Clear scope of influence (what can and cannot change). 

Learning about access is only useful if it leads to action. Many organisations invest time in training, research, or consultation but fail to implement changes due to time pressures, competing priorities, or fear of getting things wrong. Prioritising action – even small, incremental steps – builds momentum and demonstrates commitment. Importantly, this action must be informed by ongoing engagement and evaluation, allowing organisations to adapt based on real experience rather than static plans. 

When disabled people are excluded from planning and decision-making, access measures can become guesswork and often miss the mark. Involving disabled consultants, artists, staff, and community members allows organisations to make informed choices, anticipate challenges, and avoid reinforcing outdated assumptions. It also fosters a sense of shared ownership and accountability. 

There is also sometimes a reluctance to ask for direct feedback from disabled people. More often, organisations might only rely on professional disabled consultants, instead of the disabled staff or visitors that they already know. 

It is important to bear in mind that some disabled people and communities experience consultation fatigue. This is the mental, emotional, and physical exhaustion that is experienced because they are being asked to participate in consultations too often, particularly when they see little or no, meaningful change as a result. So, it is important that consultation is recompensed, efforts are recognised, and organisations are clear about how, if, and when change will happen as a result of engagement, including where they are limited in what it is not possible to change.

Consider: 

• Audio-recorded feedback. 

• BSL video submissions. 

• Easy Read surveys. 

• In-person conversation for evaluation. 

• Anonymous digital forms compatible with screen readers. 

Evaluation should be accessible in format and in timing. 

How could assumptions about a “typical” visitor experience be reconsidered through engagement with disabled people?