Making Multisensory Interpretation a Reality

This article first appeared in the journal Exhibition (Fall 2025) Vol. 44 No. 2 and is reproduced with permission.

Museum visitors learn and engage through multiple senses. For museums and historic sites to be accessible, they must provide interpretation in multisensory ways. This work can be challenging for those sites with limited staff, volunteers, and budgets. The Intrepid Museum—a 1943 aircraft carrier, now open to the public as an exhibition space and National Historic Landmark—is possibly both the most challenging and the absolute best place to test theories of how multisensory interpretive strategies can create accessible environments. An ongoing collaboration with New York University (NYU) Ability Project faculty and students and disabled self-advocates has fostered creative problem-solving, opportunities for cost-effective iterative innovation, and resources applicable to a wide range of museums. Making History Accessible: Toolkit for Multisensory Interpretation (the toolkit) compiles our findings into a single open-source document, so that these efforts can inform and inspire work at other institutions. This article looks at our experiences collaborating on the toolkit, the process we use, and outlines key recommendations so that our work can benefit others hoping to create a more welcoming and accessible space for all visitors.

Importance

Museums and historic sites must balance their obligations to protect and preserve the integrity of collections and historic structures and landscapes with the growing need to provide an accessible visitor experience. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 28.7 percent of adults in the United States have a disability, whether sensory, physical, cognitive, or self-care. And this rate increases to 43.9 percent for seniors aged 65 and older.^[i] In 2015, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) estimated that adults with disabilities attended museums or art galleries at half the rate of nondisabled adults.^[ii] Some barriers to visitation, such as local transportation access, may be outside a museum’s control, but museums have a responsibility to reduce or remove the barriers they can. Museums have a legal obligation to ensure they are accessible to all potential visitors, including those with disabilities, or, at the very least, that they provide meaningful alternatives for engagement. However, truly delivering on their missions to connect their collections, spaces, and stories with the public means striving for accessible and inclusive practice in all facets of their work, beyond the ADA minimum.

A large group of students gathers inside an open gallery in the Intrepid Museum for their first field trip as part of the NYU course. A woman with short blonde hair stands near the center of the group, addressing them. — Fig.1. First NYU field trip to the Intrepid Museum.

When considering accessibility, museums need to think beyond basic physical access and find ways to address barriers around communication and sensory experience. A significant challenge for many museums and historic sites is how they interpret their stories, with a majority relying primarily on visual displays. For preservation and safety reasons, these displays are often behind a rope, under glass, or next to a “do not touch” sign.^[iii] This approach can exclude visitors with disabilities from fully accessing or understanding crucial stories and artifacts:

A visitor who is blind may not be able to see the information
A visitor with a reading disability may struggle to process long and poorly designed labels
A visitor with intellectual disabilities may not be able to make the connection between an object on display and their own life
A sensory-seeking child may struggle not to touch or move around
A visitor using a wheelchair may not be able to get through the tight doorway into the room with all of the interpretation, and so forth.

We all learn and engage through multiple senses: touching, hearing, smelling, tasting, and seeing. For historic sites and museums to be accessible, their content must be interpreted in a multisensory way that invites everyone to participate.

Theoretical Framework

In 2019, the Intrepid Museum and NYU Ability Project received a grant through the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to support the collaborative development of the toolkit, the goal of which was to address the inherent challenge of balancing historic integrity with accessibility and to provide guidelines and examples for museum professionals looking to design accessible experiences for all visitors. We employed principles of universal design (UD), which calls on designers to think about the range of abilities and disabilities museum visitors may have as they experience an exhibition.^[iv] Since visitors have different learning styles (some learn best through touch, some through hearing, and some through sight), we focused on multisensory design to create experiences that considered all five senses (fig. 1).^[v]^{, ^[vi]}

Instead of only presenting information visually, it is important to consider opportunities for visitors to learn through sound, taste, touch, and smell. For example, a multisensory approach to understanding a specific room in a historic site would offer visitors a chance to listen to relevant sounds or oral histories, to touch replicas of tools or furniture, or to smell relevant materials. But this comes with a caveat: while increasing sensory offerings can make content more accessible, it is crucial to let visitors choose through which modality/modalities they prefer to receive information, as activating too many senses may be overwhelming. For example, visitors should be able to control the volume, speed, or playback of audio. If smells are incorporated, they should be contained, so that visitors can opt to open a lid or sniff a container and not find themselves in a room filled with odors.

Our goals are to move beyond merely creating spaces and experiences that meet ADA compliance or digital accessibility standards. We strive to create fully accessible and empowering experiences through leveraging anti-ableist practices from Nothing About Us Without Us.^[vii] To this end, we employ inclusive design (ID),^[viii] participatory design (PD),^[ix] and collaborative design (CD)^[x] principles. We formed an interdisciplinary team of curators, fabricators, designers, technologists, clinicians, and disability advocates. We followed an iterative design process, where we prioritized the voices of those with lived experience of disability. Our interdisciplinary team engaged in iterative prototyping, frequent meetings, and careful documentation (as described below).

Putting Theory into Practice

Laying the Groundwork for Successful Collaboration

Collaborating with an interdisciplinary team, not only across museums and historic sites, but also within a university course with an embedded focus on UD, accessibility experts, and self-advocates, ensured a multifaceted approach to problem-solving. As anyone who has attempted collaboration knows, it can be challenging, so it is worth taking a moment to surface the structures put in place to ensure the success of this particular project.

In addition to bringing together different groups with different expertise, our partnering historic sites/museums each faced different challenges, including budget levels and staffing capacity, as well as other institutional differences. In addition to the Intrepid Museum, the participating museums and historic sites were Bainbridge Island Historical Museum (Washington), Brandywine River Museum of Art (Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania), Eastern State Penitentiary (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Fort Ticonderoga (New York), Fosterfields Living Historical Farm (Morristown, New Jersey), Louisiana State Museums, 1850 House (New Orleans), and Macculloch Hall Historical Museum (Morristown, New Jersey). Luckily, best practices for collaboration exist, and while seemingly simple, can lead to the “collaborative advantage” described by organizational researcher Chris Huxham, where, together, the partners are able to achieve to a level greater than they would ever have been able to on their own.^[xi]

In addition to emphasizing the need for clarity around each individual’s role within a project, organizational researchers underscore the importance of all partners understanding shared goals and developing a shared language to be used. To that end, toolkit collaborators set up a clear cadence of meetings, deliverables, and outcomes from the beginning. We learned that it is important to be transparent with partners and advisers about constraints with budget, time, and staffing. Considerable time was taken in the beginning to ensure all partners were clear on these elements. At the most basic level, we needed to create a collaborative understanding of what we meant by “sensory tools.” This, along with gaining a shared understanding of the parameters for the project, was the necessary first step we all needed to take together. (Eventually, we adopted “multisensory interpretation” instead of sensory tools, as this language resonated more fully with the group.) We agreed that the project was about more than basic accessibility, as there are already resources for that. Instead, our work was centered on the process of interpretation, which would incorporate multisensory components to increase engagement and understanding for all (fig. 2).

A group of adults, at least one of whom is using a wheelchair, gathers in a brightly lit conference room, seated at multiple tables in small discussion groups. Papers, notebooks, laptops, and food are on the tables, indicating a collaborative workshop or meeting. A screen on the wall displays the word Welcome! and the date, Tuesday, December 10, 2019—Day 1. — Fig. 2. A convening of disability self-advocates, advisors, and representatives from historic sites.

NYU Course Structure

We developed an interdisciplinary course on Accessible Interpretation in Historic Sites and Museums at NYU that has been running annually since 2019. This course is taught by two instructors knowledgeable about museums, with one specializing in design and the other in lived experience with disability (typically an occupational therapist). The course is open to students across the campus (graduate and undergraduate) to attract students with backgrounds in design, art, technology, museums, and disability. The students in this course became collaborators on the projects leading to the development of the toolkit.

The course focused on hands-on learning through real-world projects, and students were organized into interdisciplinary groups to work on prototype projects with pre-assigned mentors (museum practitioners). Students and mentors were able to set their own meeting schedules, and mentors were invited to participate in feedback sessions about all student prototype work at midterm and the end of the semester. All student presentations were pre-recorded and included online surveys for feedback, so mentors who could not attend the class sessions were still able to participate and give asynchronous feedback.

Class sessions gave students necessary skills related to their work (with a changing focus depending on each semester’s project) and an introduction to design and disability. Instructors provided additional activities and assignments related to digital accessibility, tactile media, brainstorming and collaboration, and evaluation. These skills were supplemented with guest lectures from museum or clinical professionals with lived experience with disability to give students additional insight into the disability communities they were focusing on. When possible, we organized one site visit for the class; however, this was not always possible given student schedules or when collaborating with the partners located in other cities.

Iteration, User Testing, and Evaluation

User testing with low-cost prototypes is essential when developing multisensory interpretive tools to ensure that before investing in the final project, teams understand whether or not devices serve their intended users well. While collaborating on the toolkit, the Intrepid Museum’s exhibitions team and NYU Ability Project students worked with our partner sites to prototype exhibit elements that addressed content in multisensory ways. These prototypes were tested with disability advocates and local members of the disability community at the Intrepid Museum. We tested informally, working with our professional contacts to provide feedback. We also tested more formally by setting up a temporary exhibition from which we gathered feedback from visitors with and without disabilities (intro image). Our methodologies included user surveys as well as 1:1 observation protocols and think-alouds (where the user talks aloud through their exploration).

We collected 54 surveys and observed/interviewed eight specific users with disabilities, including visitors who are blind or have low vision, visitors with limited dexterity, wheelchair users, neurodivergent visitors, and visitors who are D/deaf or hard of hearing. We implemented changes into the later iterations of our prototypes based on the feedback we received. These changes included making sure audio components could be turned off and changing one tactile reproduction from a partial reproduction to a full model. After testing, each historic site received funding support through the grant to prototype at least one element on-site at their own institution, giving them concrete data on the challenges and successes of these elements in their own spaces and with their local communities.

Multisensory Tools

As described in the toolkit, the prototypes collaboratively developed by NYU students, the Intrepid Museum, and partner historic sites encompassed the following approaches (check out the free toolkit for detailed examples):

Physical and Digital Experiences

Tactile Experiences
Touch experiences can help visitors better engage with content.
Bringing Stories Out from Behind Glass
Offering reproductions of key artifacts in an accessible, interactive environment can enhance engagement with interpretation.
Engaging Multiple Senses
Enhancing interpretation through multisensory experiences, including tactile, audio, and olfactory resources, allows for many types of interaction.
Providing Multiple Perspectives
Interpreting environments, objects, and stories from several points of view deepens understanding.
Designing Accessible Content
Using plain language engagesmore visitors.
Accessible Mobile Devices
Creating accessible digital content that can be accessed on personal mobile devices supports autonomous navigation of spaces and content.

Embedding Lessons in Practice

Ongoing Impacts at the Intrepid Museum

Since completing the toolkit, the Intrepid Museum and NYU Ability Project have embedded the lessons learned into exhibition development processes and the course curriculum. At the Intrepid Museum, the list of outcomes is long and includes: incorporating tactile wayfinding, such as a prototype tactile map, into the museum; adding a selection of touch objects in exhibitions; developing audio description for exhibition elements; and standardization of QR code placement and the use of raised QR codes to facilitate access to digital interpretation tools (fig. 3). Working with advisors who are self-advocates or disability experts and user testing have now become regular practices—especially incorporating users who have a range of disabilities. For guidance on how to budget for, plan time for, and recruit for user testing, see the toolkit sections on co-design and building institutional capacity, as well as the appendix for sample checklists and communication resources.[1] We have continued to work with the NYU Ability Project, even as they work with additional museums. Currently, the Intrepid Museum is collaborating with the NYU Ability Project to envision multisensory interpretative strategies for yet-to-be-opened areas of the aircraft carrier including the sick bay, post office, and barber shop.

A aluminum-cast model of an airplane invites visitors to touch it as part of that object's label. The label also includes a photograph of the plane in flight and a translation in braille. — Fig. 3. Tactile components are now a regular exhibition-design feature at the Intrepid Museum. Here, an aluminum-cast model is incorporated onto an airplane’s label with its name in braille. The QR code with more information and audio description is on a raised surface with braille.

An image with two rows of patches. The top row contains four historic patches that could be affixed to clothing: a pouncing, growling tiger on a yellow ground, a red devil with horns and a halo sitting in fire against a blue sky, a black-and-white patch showing an eagle over a knot over a triple chevron, and a similar, updated patch showing an eagle over a stylized flag over a single chevron. The bottom row shows how each patch has been turned into a tactile graphic with raised edges for visitor engagement. — Fig. 4. Tactile interpretation of historic patches. The top row features photos of the original patches, while the bottom row features embroidered replicas that are optimized for touch.

Lessons Learned and Reflections on Working with Students

Overall, we have found this structure to be successful in bringing new ideas, perspectives, and skills into the design of inclusive exhibits. We have many examples of students collaborating with community partners, getting to work with museum curators, and students leveraging this opportunity to build portfolios with completed work. Several of the students who have participated in this course have gone on to pursue careers in curation and design, art and technology, or user-experience design and have featured these projects in their portfolios (fig. 4).

While we think this project offers a successful structure for creatively thinking about accessibility, we also offer some limitations and recommendations. First, we cannot control the skills, interests, or experiences of students who enroll in the course, so it is important for the external mentors to be flexible and willing to deviate from their initial project plan. Specifically, it is important to recognize that while students participating in this course have many relevant skills, they do not have the same expertise as professional contractors, as this may be their first experience applying these skills to real-world contexts. Additionally, students are taking this course among many others and may not have schedules that align with the needs of their museum partner. It is important to remember that students are taking this course as a learning activity and not as an internship, so their ability to meet the course requirements and learn new skills should come before the needs (or schedule) of their museum partner. For projects where student efforts have uncovered strategies or approaches curators want to implement, we have seen success when the mentors hire the students as contractors after the course is complete.

After teaching this course five times, NYU faculty have learned many lessons that have been adopted into the course structure, which we offer to others interested in replicating this format:

Set up students in teams early and ensure each student team has at least one mentor with experience who can answer their specific questions
Set up a communication plan early, and ensure there are asynchronous and synchronous ways for teams to collaborate; encourage weekly check-ins
Take an open-source approach to student projects so it is easy for collaborators to follow progress and possible for future teams (either classes or curatorial teams) to continue the work and access materials
Students are eager to work with their local museums and to see the impact of their work in the community

Conclusion

Work on the toolkit reinforced the notion that even in extremely low-resourced museums (in terms of budget or staffing) some multisensory interpretation can be possible and successful. Engaging directly with disabled self-advocates and being open to a range of low- and high-tech approaches to address the specific interpretation challenges of a site are essential. In addition, working with museums and self-advocates can create meaningful and effective real-world learning opportunities for students, while introducing museums to new ideas and creative approaches. The accessible toolkit, available for free download, provides concrete resources and examples for both museum practitioners and academic programs interested in taking on this work. As the development process made clear: it **is** possible to incorporate this work to some level at any site at any budget.

There is no reason not to start now.

Amy Hurst is an Associate Professor and the Ability Project Director at New York University. amyhurst@nyu.edu

Lynda Kennedy is VP, Education & Evaluation, at the Intrepid Museum in New York, New York. Lkennedy@intrepidmuseum.org

Charlotte Martin is Director, Access Initiatives, at the Intrepid Museum. Cmartin@intrepidmuseum.org

^[i] “Disability and Health Data System (DHDS) Data,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of Human Development and Disability, accessed March 20, 2025, https://dhds.cdc.gov.

^[ii] Beth Bienvenu, “Museums and the Americans with Disabilities Act at 25: Progress and Looking Ahead,” National Endowment for the Arts, October 15, 2015, https://www.arts.gov/stories/blog/2015/museums-and-americans-disabilities-act-25-progress-and-looking-ahead.

^[iii] Kozue Handa, Hitoshi Dairoku, and Yoshiko Toriyama, “Investigation of Priority Needs in Terms of Museum Service Accessibility for Visually Impaired Visitors,” British Journal of Visual Impairment 28, no. 3 (September 2010): 221–34, doi.org/10.1177/0264619610374680.

^[iv] Molly Follette Story, “Maximizing Usability: The Principles of Universal Design,” Assistive Technology 10, no. 1 (1998): 4–12, doi:10.1080/10400435.1998.10131955.

^[v] Dan Luo, Dan, Lieve Doucé, and Karin Nys, “Multisensory Museum Experience: An Integrative View and Future Research Directions,” Museum Management and Curatorship (May 2024): doi:10.1080/09647775.2024.2357071.

^[vi] Nina Levent and Alvaro Pascual-Leone, eds., The Multisensory Museum: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory, and Space (Rowman & Littlefield, 2014).

^[vii] James I. Charlton, Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment (University of California Press, 1998).

^[viii] Simeon Keates, P. John Clarkson, Lee-Anne Harrison, and Peter Robinson, “Towards a practical inclusive design approach,” in Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability, November 16–17, 2000, Arlington, Virginia, p. 45–52.

^[ix] Michael J. Muller, and Sarah Kuhn, “Participatory Design,” Communications of the ACM 36, no. 6 (1993): 24–28.

^[x] Marc Steen, “Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination,” Design Issues 29, no. 2 (Spring 2013): 16–28.

^[xi] Chris Huxham, “Pursuing Collaborative Advantage,” The Journal of the Operational Research Society 44, no. 6 (June 1993): 599–611.

Amy Hurst, Lynda Kennedy, and Charlotte Martin

Making Multisensory Interpretation a Reality

Importance

Theoretical Framework

Putting Theory into Practice