01 / THE BLUEPRINT
The problem to investigate
A visitor may be unable to judge a venue from a general accessibility claim. Ask disabled people about the specific information they need for different journeys. Needs vary, and one person’s successful visit does not establish that a venue works for everyone.
02 / THE BLUEPRINT
A possible solution
Create structured venue notes covering features that a local co-design group selects, with observation dates and a contact for confirmation. Separate measured observations, venue statements and visitor accounts. The tool should support a decision, not guarantee an accessible or safe visit.
03 / THE BLUEPRINT
Start without an app
A venue telephone checklist or a small, curated printable guide may be the best start. Work with existing disability organisations and directories. If reliable updates are not possible, a shorter dated guide is better than a large map with stale certainty.
04 / THE BLUEPRINT
Technology that could help
An accessible web directory, structured fields and a correction queue could support the concept. Prioritise keyboard navigation, screen-reader testing and readable text over a map-first interface. Maps can be optional; important information must remain available without them.
05 / THE BLUEPRINT
Your first experiment
- Pay a small co-design group of disabled users to identify useful observations and wording.
- Test a fictional venue profile with different access needs and assistive technologies.
- With permission, document a few real venues and ask them to confirm changeable details.
- Review accuracy and user comprehension before publishing a small dated directory.
06 / THE BLUEPRINT
People, resources and cost drivers
Resources include compensated user participation, accessible design, verification visits and a corrections owner. Travel, translation and recurring checks are cost drivers. A directory serving people who face access barriers must itself have a usable non-map and low-bandwidth route.
07 / THE BLUEPRINT
What to validate — and when to stop
Check whether people can distinguish an observed feature from a guarantee. Stop using a field or badge if it hides important differences between users’ needs. Remove or flag stale information and make a direct venue confirmation route available.
08 / HYPOTHESIS TO TEST
Potential impact and how to measure it
The proposed benefit is better information before a visit. Measure how often users find needed details, identify uncertainty and contact a venue. Do not infer increased independence or reduced exclusion from page views; ask participants through an appropriate evaluation.
09 / THE BLUEPRINT
Risks and safeguards
Incorrect access information can cause wasted journeys or unsafe situations. Do not publish private medical information or identify visitors without permission. Avoid universal ratings and keep a clear, responsive correction process for changes or disputed observations.
10 / THE BLUEPRINT
Who might pay or maintain it
A community organisation or venue association could support verified information, with independent editorial rules. Disclose venue payments and never sell an “accessible” badge as a substitute for assessment. Fund recurring checks and fair participation costs.