SENSIBILIA

Project review

At the outset the project was intended as a three way investigation.
(i) to explore the potential for visualisations based on architectural modelling tools
(ii) to explore the ways in which disabled people can better access complex artworks
(iii) to construct a creative response to these explorations which might feature within the FACT Centre

The early ambitions were aimed at producing sophisticated solutions to what were perceived as sophisticated needs and to achieve this through the use of sophisticated tools. The project was premised on an image of a technology-based solution to a simple human need for clarity.

The result of the project has been a reinforcement of the need for clarity and simplicity to be reflected in the design of the solution. (This is perhaps an obvious statement, but it has become clear to me in the course of the project, that there is a need to control the temptation towards over-elaboration when using new media tools.)

First responses

Although much effort has gone into resolving technical issues around meshing architectural design tools with multimedia authoring tools, this effort has ultimately not produced anything which achieved the basic requirement of inclusive accessibility. The tools which might provide us with a sophisticated visual navigation tool were not possible to translate into a non-visual form and the tools which might provide us with complex audio navigation could not be transmediated into an non-audio form. The choice was clear - either to develop independent solutions for different needs, or to find a useful common denominator. The aim of the discussions with the consultants and the architects was to locate this common denominator - and this was ultimately defined as text.

This was resolved as a solution using text presented as written, spoken or signed, with explicit descriptions rather than realisations of the environment. The final design, although consciously imbued with an aestheic of simplicity, is also in this form for very functional purposes. There is no need for any extraneous design, design which would simply muddle the clarity. The final design is almost a return to early computer technology - monochrome graphics, big text, but this has been selected as a direct response to the input from the specialist consultants and is also a response to the design fundamentals informing the architecture of the building.

Locating the project

Once a design solution was conceived, further issues arose concerning how a device like this could be made to work within a building such as the FACT Centre. Despite early optimism, the outlook has been tempered by a concern that any technological tool could be very difficult to locate within the building, or, more seriously, be perceived by staff as the only way in which disabled people may access information. The spectre of a scenario in which an information assistant refers a deaf person to a machine, rather than attempt to respond to an enquiry was raised. This was discussed many times and, partly in response to this, a commitment has been made by FACT to investigate ways in which the contents of the navigation tools could be used as a preview to a visit - mailed on CD direct to a persons home or work on a quarterly basis. This CD would contain programme previews and information on specific artworks based around the principles defined in this project.

The orientation wall

However, in addition to this there is still a desire to investigate ways in which the project might feature within the building. The original intention was to develop the pilot with a view to it functioning as part of the 'orientation wall' in the building. This feature, one of those developed through the collaboration between the lead artist and the architects, is a set of columns, set just inside the building, which will provide a live snapshot of the building's life. Real-time information about activities within the building will be relayed through a bank of CCTV monitors which will be located on the columns, just above a set of LCD screens that will display programme information in a form similar to the Sensibilia pilot.

Interaction

The original plan was to make these systems interactive, and to do this in such a way as to be accessible to all. In order to achieve this, much effort was put into exploring the most effective method of user interaction. The device which was suggested as the ideal interface was the telephone keypad. Most telephone keypads are identical in layout and feature a raised nodule on the 5 key, giving users with a visual impairment an anchor for their navigation. Telephone keypads also provide 12 options for navigation, which allows for sophisticated use. However, a fairly significant hurdle presented itself when we were completely unable to locate a telephone keypad which could be directly plugged into a computer. All the numerical keypads available for computer use feature a layout based on the pocket calculator, in which the number sequence is inverted (on a phone the 1 key is at the top left, on a calculator it is bottom left). This was a significant problem as we didn't want to go into the complexity and cost of having a keypad built from scratch, so the compromise of using the readily available calculator keypad was adopted.

Feedback

Once this approach was confirmed the next issue was to work out how to provide users with feedback through the course of their interactivity. Obviously at this point the needs of users diverged. Users with a visual impairment would require audible responses and descriptions which were not based on visual stimulus. Users with a hearing impairment would require descriptions which did not rely upon audio explanations - but just as significantly were not overtly in a syntax which over-elaborated detail for users for whom English might be their second language (after for e.g British Sign Language). At this point it was necessary to test the conventions of exhibition information in order to arrive at a description which could be engaging for all users. (An initial aim was to create a system in which information would only have to be written once - the technology would then present that information in way most appropriate to the user).

Design rules

In addition to the language issues, the technological needs were resolved by the use of a number of design solutions which determined the formal look of the pilot. These solutions were not arrived at through scientific tests, but were based on guidance from the consultants as to their preferences. People with a sensory impairment are as varied in their tastes and intelligence as everyone else, and the pilot was intended to reflect the needs of the group without assuming that information in this form should be bland and witless.

The group concluded the following ;
Text should be displayed in sans-serif fonts, white on black in single blocks (no columns or sidebars).
Audio descriptions using computer generated voices are still in their infancy, and leave much to be desired, but higher pitched voices were considered to be more audible in a boomy, populated environment.
Signed versions of text, although not necessarily essential for all deaf users, were heartily welcomed as a signal of inclusiveness. These were tested at various screen resolutions and frame rates.
Video on the computer is still less than perfect and lack of detail in both resolution and speed could lead to loss of nuance within sign language. A resolution of 320 x 240 pixels at 12 frames per second was deemed to be acceptable.

Positioning the solution

Once the pilot was tested, we explored the issues of how it could be made to work within the building. Users would have to know where it was when they enter the building. They should be able to recognise that it was interactive and be able to understand the rules of navigational quickly and effortlessly. In many ways this is the most difficult challenge.

One solution was to position the orientation wall as close to the entrance route as possible, at the first point of choice. The piece is programmed to send out an audible call every minute (it says "Information"), but we cannot yet be sure how audible this will be within a complex architectural space. The positioning and composition of the orientation wall is obviously central to these concerns, but the design of the rest of the foyer area needs to be taken into account. The vast number of different and competing calls on this space have to be managed by the architects and in many ways it has been necessary to trust in their spatial skills in resolving this issue. But the bottom line is that without the completed building it is impossible to know what the competing stimuli will be. An honest response would be that, as the building design has evolved, I have come to realise what a difficult task we have set ourselves.