A short international survey titled “Short Research of Tactile Graphics Presence in Culture and Education”
gathered 91 responses and explored how tactile objects and tactile graphics are represented in cultural and educational institutions.
Results of the short Research of Tactile Graphics Presence in Culture and Education (PDF, 186 kB)
Respondents and Cultural Participation
The questionnaire collected responses from six main country groups: Italy (25.3%), Greece (16.5%), Other countries (16.5%),
Hungary (14.3%), Slovakia (14.3%), and Germany (13.2%).
When asked about visiting cultural institutions such as museums, 33% reported visiting several times per year, 31.9% at least twice per year,
18.7% very rarely, and 15.4% never. This indicates that the majority of respondents are at least occasional visitors to cultural institutions.
Availability of Tactile Objects
Regarding the number of institutions offering tactile objects for people with visual impairments, responses were distributed as follows:
- 45.1% stated that many institutions (a large number) offer tactile objects.
- 35.2% reported that some institutions (a moderate number) provide them.
- 8.8% said none or almost none.
- 8.8% indicated they have no information.
These results suggest that tactile objects are present in a significant portion of institutions, although their availability is far from universal.
When examining how tactile objects are made available:
- 24.2% reported that they are always available during regular opening hours.
- 25.3% said they are available only on request.
- 19.8% indicated availability only on specific days or times.
- 8.8% mentioned availability only during special events.
- 17.6% reported they are not available at all.
This demonstrates that even where tactile materials exist, access is often conditional rather than fully integrated into standard exhibition practice.
Types of Tactile Graphics Used
Respondents evaluated the extent to which different tactile formats are used (on a scale from 1 = not used at all to 5 = used very extensively).
The formats included:
- Braille graphics (images created from Braille cells)
- Embossed tactile graphics (raised dot images)
- Swell paper / microcapsule raised-line graphics
- Relief tactile graphics
The visual distribution suggests moderate rather than extensive use across formats, with no single format clearly dominating at the highest levels of use.
This indicates diversity of techniques but limited systematic implementation.
Perceived Quality of Tactile Objects
Respondents rated the general quality of tactile objects on a scale from 1 to 10.
The results show a concentration in the middle range (around 5–7), with fewer ratings at the extremes.
This implies that while tactile objects are present, their overall quality is perceived as average rather than excellent.
What Would Motivate More Museum Visits?
Participants were asked which factors would most motivate them to visit museums more often (multiple selections allowed):
- 72.5% chose more tactile objects.
- 65.9% chose more help for independent orientation inside exhibitions.
- 50.5% chose more explanatory text in large print or audio format.
- 46.2% chose more explanatory text in Braille.
The strongest motivating factor by far is the increase of tactile objects themselves, followed closely by improved independent navigation.
Evaluation and Implications
The survey reveals three key conclusions:
-
Tactile objects are present but not systematically integrated.
While a large proportion of respondents report that many institutions offer tactile materials, availability is often limited to requests,
specific times, or special events. This indicates that tactile access is frequently treated as an additional service rather than a standard feature. -
Quality and implementation remain moderate.
The mid-range quality ratings and moderate reported use of tactile graphic formats suggest room for professional development,
standardisation, and methodological improvement in tactile design. -
Demand clearly exceeds current provision.
The overwhelming preference for “more tactile objects” (72.5%) shows a strong and direct need. Furthermore, the high percentage requesting
better independent orientation (65.9%) indicates that accessibility must be addressed holistically — not only through isolated tactile items,
but through spatial design, navigation, and explanatory information.
Overall Conclusion
The results demonstrate that tactile graphics and tactile objects are increasingly present in cultural and educational institutions,
yet they are not consistently embedded into mainstream practice. Visitors express a clear demand for more tactile content and better independent access.
For policymakers, museum professionals, and accessibility experts, the implication is clear: accessibility should move from occasional accommodation
toward systematic inclusion. Increasing both the quantity and quality of tactile materials — alongside improved orientation and multi-format information —
would significantly enhance participation of people with visual impairments in cultural life.