3. Why making accessible exhibitions is important

As we read in ‘why access is important‘, accessibility in the exhibitions sector remains unevenly implemented.  We have examined why there is uneven implementation and these factors remain at play as we move to thinking specifically about exhibition making.  Accessibility and removing barriers for disabled people is not yet day to day practice and remains in the realm of adjustments, additions and access services.  It is an extra, and therefore may be seen as extra work.

This is, in part, due to attitudinal barriers. People do not see that accessible approaches enrich exhibitions. If you do not see the opportunity, and instead view access as a problem or difficulty, it will always be extra work. There needs to be a shift in the understanding of why access matters, and how people think about access needs to change.

Accessible exhibitions require more than meeting minimum legal standards – they demand, and deserve, a holistic approach that considers how disabled people, who face many different kinds of barriers, encounter exhibitions. When accessibility is prioritised from concept to delivery, the exhibitions sector becomes a more equal one where disabled people can participate, not as an afterthought but as valued members of the cultural community.

For a video introduction to this section, you can watch this video about developing accessibl exhibitions.

Despite growing awareness, access may often be perceived within the UK exhibitions sector as something functional rather than creative. It is seen as an obligation rather than an opportunity. Many organisations treat it as an ‘add on’ or a retrofit to an assumed norm, rather than recognising that accessibility can be an integral part of artistic and curatorial vision. Because access work is rarely seen as interesting, expansive, or innovative, it is frequently deprioritised, underfunded, or left until the final stages of production. And where it may be considered early, it may be the first thing to go when resources need re-examining.  This mindset not only limits the quality of access provision but reinforces the idea that disabled people exist outside of the cultural mainstream, that their inclusion takes away rather than adds to our shared lives.

Reframing access as a source of creative possibility and structural equity is essential to shifting this dynamic and building a sector where access is embedded, disabled people are valued, and their culture is celebrated.

A persistent misconception within the exhibitions sector is that access provisions somehow diminish or “spoil” the experience for non-disabled visitors. Features such as audio description, relaxed environments, captioning, or tactile elements are sometimes viewed as distractions from an intended aesthetic rather than as enhancements that broaden understanding and engagement. This is an ableist view because it assumes that the non-disabled way of doing things is the default or superior approach. This reflects a narrow and exclusionary idea of what an exhibition should be, rooted in outdated assumptions about a single, idealised visitor.

In reality, accessible design rarely detracts from an exhibition’s impact. More often creative access enriches exhibitions, offering multiple pathways into the work and inviting a wider range of people to connect with it. Overcoming the belief that access compromises quality is essential for creating cultural spaces that are genuinely open, dynamic, and reflective of the diverse public they serve.

Misunderstandings around what meaningful access entails often stem from unexamined norms that have shaped the UK exhibitions sector for decades. Many institutions rely on outdated assumptions, generic checklists, or superficial benchmarks rather than engaging with the lived experiences of disabled people or established best practice. As a result, access is frequently approached through a “one size fits all” approach.

These challenges highlight the need to question the drivers behind current standards: Who defined them? Whose experiences shaped the expectations of what an exhibition should be? By interrogating these inherited norms and grounding access work in collaboration with disabled practitioners, organisations can move toward more nuanced, flexible, and context-specific approaches that genuinely remove barriers for disabled people.

Further information:

Building standards are not access standards

Meeting building regulations (e.g. step-free access, lift dimensions, toilet specifications) does not guarantee meaningful access. 

Legal compliance frameworks such as the Equality Act establish minimum duties, not best practice. 

An accessible doorway does not equal: 

• Legible interpretation text. 

• Sensory-aware lighting. 

• Inclusive narrative framing. 

• Clear pre-visit information. 

Example of same impairment different access requirements 

Two visitors who both identify as Deaf may require: 

• BSL interpretation 

• Speech-to-text reporting 

• Captioned video 

• Written transcripts 

Two visitors with mobility impairments may have entirely different needs depending on: 

• Stamina 

• Pain levels 

• Use of mobility aids 

• Fluctuating conditions 

Access cannot be reduced to diagnostic categories. It must be flexible, responsive, and informed by lived experience. 

What do you currently do?  Who does this provide access for?

Why do you do it that way and how do you know it works?

Which assumptions about “typical” visitors might be shaping your organisation’s approach to access?

Where might your current access provisions rely on one-size-fits-all solutions?