Page 28 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 10(2) (2022)
P. 28
ns with the purpose to include them in differ-studia universitatis her editati, letnik 10 (2022), številk a 2 / volume 10 (2022), number 2 28Salmen 1998). Although there has been a move-
ent aspects of society life. ment towards making museums more accessible,
hereditati persons with disabilities lag behind in the expe-
In many countries in Europe and the world, rience of museum exhibitions (Rappolt-Schli-
there has been a strong shift from the medical chtmann and Daley 2013). Universal Design in
model where persons with disabilities are seen as Learning (UDL) gives an alternative for muse-
persons with diagnoses (biomedical perception ums and exhibitions, in line with the progres-
of disability) to the social model and model of sive view of disability, not only focusing on the
human rights. The social model recognizes that physical aspects and physical accessibility but
disability is created by society and persons with also access to learning options. Universal De-
disabilities face many barriers that prevent them sign for Learning (UDL) is a framework for de-
from inclusion in society life. Universal design veloping and delivering content that is accessi-
is the bridge and connector between these two ble to all learners (Hall, Meyer and Rose 2012).
models. The UDL framework incorporates the following
principles: 1. Provision of multiple means of rep-
It should be noted that the difficulties asso- resentation (to activate the what, or the recogni-
ciated with different types of disabilities are in- tion networks of the brain); 2. Provision of mul-
dividual (each case is a case of its own), and the tiple means of expression (to activate the how, or
deficiencies are not static (they are evolutionary the strategic networks of the brain); and 3. Pro-
and may have positive or negative evolution). In vision of multiple means of engagement (to ac-
general, the solutions that are placed are always tivate the why, or the affective networks of the
tailor-made, and the system should be sufficient- brain) (CAST 2008; Hall et al. 2012; King-Sears
ly intelligent or flexible enough to adapt to the 2014).
user, not the other way around. The idea of the
tools dynamically adapting to the user profile is UDL is a good fit for museums. It focuses
something that has been pursued for many years. on multiplying the modalities in which we pres-
The goal is to have a solution that reads the user ent exhibits and the types of interaction they
profile and return an entire adapted interface. elicit from visitors. Virtual reality and augment-
However, given the difficulty of finding Univer- ed reality technology offer close-up experiences
sal solutions, relying on tools where the learning of heritage assets. Universal Design is not mu-
curve for its full utilization (including its per- tually excluded with assistive technology. As-
sonalization) is low, seems more realistic. So, the sistive technology is and will remain a very im-
alternative is to create a solution that allows to portant aspect of everyday life of persons with
respond in a global way, but it must also be ad- disabilities. Universal Design solutions should
aptable to the specific needs of different target be integrated with modern assistive technolo-
groups, not something typified, static and im- gies. One example of the interaction between
mutable in time. Solutions need to be developed UD and assistive technology is the development
that could simplify the use of the tools, through of a platform, which complies with accessibility
the design option that allows simplified custom- requirements.
ization according to needs (including colours,
font, menus and their order of presentation), and Having all of this in mind, researchers from
/ or contextual needs. four European countries worked jointly on the
Erasmus+ AD HOC project: Accessible and
Discussion digitized cultural heritage. The aim of the pro-
In the past years, many researchers call for in- ject was to create a strategic partnership in the
clusive museums, not only in regard to physi- field of higher education with the purpose to cre-
cal access but also to intellectual access (Gius- ate and share innovative practices in the digitiza-
ti 2008; Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Daley 2013; tion of the cultural heritage and its accessibility
ent aspects of society life. ment towards making museums more accessible,
hereditati persons with disabilities lag behind in the expe-
In many countries in Europe and the world, rience of museum exhibitions (Rappolt-Schli-
there has been a strong shift from the medical chtmann and Daley 2013). Universal Design in
model where persons with disabilities are seen as Learning (UDL) gives an alternative for muse-
persons with diagnoses (biomedical perception ums and exhibitions, in line with the progres-
of disability) to the social model and model of sive view of disability, not only focusing on the
human rights. The social model recognizes that physical aspects and physical accessibility but
disability is created by society and persons with also access to learning options. Universal De-
disabilities face many barriers that prevent them sign for Learning (UDL) is a framework for de-
from inclusion in society life. Universal design veloping and delivering content that is accessi-
is the bridge and connector between these two ble to all learners (Hall, Meyer and Rose 2012).
models. The UDL framework incorporates the following
principles: 1. Provision of multiple means of rep-
It should be noted that the difficulties asso- resentation (to activate the what, or the recogni-
ciated with different types of disabilities are in- tion networks of the brain); 2. Provision of mul-
dividual (each case is a case of its own), and the tiple means of expression (to activate the how, or
deficiencies are not static (they are evolutionary the strategic networks of the brain); and 3. Pro-
and may have positive or negative evolution). In vision of multiple means of engagement (to ac-
general, the solutions that are placed are always tivate the why, or the affective networks of the
tailor-made, and the system should be sufficient- brain) (CAST 2008; Hall et al. 2012; King-Sears
ly intelligent or flexible enough to adapt to the 2014).
user, not the other way around. The idea of the
tools dynamically adapting to the user profile is UDL is a good fit for museums. It focuses
something that has been pursued for many years. on multiplying the modalities in which we pres-
The goal is to have a solution that reads the user ent exhibits and the types of interaction they
profile and return an entire adapted interface. elicit from visitors. Virtual reality and augment-
However, given the difficulty of finding Univer- ed reality technology offer close-up experiences
sal solutions, relying on tools where the learning of heritage assets. Universal Design is not mu-
curve for its full utilization (including its per- tually excluded with assistive technology. As-
sonalization) is low, seems more realistic. So, the sistive technology is and will remain a very im-
alternative is to create a solution that allows to portant aspect of everyday life of persons with
respond in a global way, but it must also be ad- disabilities. Universal Design solutions should
aptable to the specific needs of different target be integrated with modern assistive technolo-
groups, not something typified, static and im- gies. One example of the interaction between
mutable in time. Solutions need to be developed UD and assistive technology is the development
that could simplify the use of the tools, through of a platform, which complies with accessibility
the design option that allows simplified custom- requirements.
ization according to needs (including colours,
font, menus and their order of presentation), and Having all of this in mind, researchers from
/ or contextual needs. four European countries worked jointly on the
Erasmus+ AD HOC project: Accessible and
Discussion digitized cultural heritage. The aim of the pro-
In the past years, many researchers call for in- ject was to create a strategic partnership in the
clusive museums, not only in regard to physi- field of higher education with the purpose to cre-
cal access but also to intellectual access (Gius- ate and share innovative practices in the digitiza-
ti 2008; Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Daley 2013; tion of the cultural heritage and its accessibility
