Accessible Tours Project 2025

Introduction

The Friends of Glasgow Botanic Gardens offers free tours to the public seasonally at multiple times throughout the week. Tours are delivered by volunteer guides who research and train on facts and history about the Gardens, plant collections, wildlife, history, and artworks. Visitors and locals regularly attend, making use of this special amenity in Glasgow. The Guides want to offer tours to deaf and/or blind visitors that are meaningful and enjoyable, and seek to understand their unique accessibility needs to adapt existing tour materials and enhance their enjoyment of the Gardens.

Our Research

Navigating Nature (Research)

Explore our original in-depth research findings and accessibility insights that shaped this project.

View Research Site

Project Timeline

Week 1 (22 - 25 Jul 2025)

Discovery

Met stakeholders to understand accessibility needs. Conducted a field visit at the Botanic Gardens. Sketched early concepts for inclusive features.

📹 Pitch 1 Video

Initial project pitch presentation showcasing our accessibility research and proposed solutions

📸 Week 1 Gallery

1 / 4

Prototype sketching

Our first information board prototype sketching.

Prototype sketching

Our first guidebook prototype sketching.

Team Brainstorming

Collaborative session to generate ideas for enhancing accessibility features.

Our First Guided Tour

We attend a guided tour in the Glasgow Botanic Gardens to observe accessibility features in action.

Listening to the History

The volunteer guide shared fascinating stories about the garden's history and its significance.

Decent Information Board

We found a well-designed information board highlighting the garden's accessibility features.

Minimal Information Board

A small black card introducing the tree which the visitors have to move closer to read.

📝 Week 1 Reflections (22 July - 25 July 2025)

1 / 4

July 22, 2025

Meeting the StakeHolder

Today, we officially began our project and were briefed on our job scope: to enhance accessibility for deaf and blind visitors at the Glasgow Botanic Gardens. We met with our stakeholder, Chrissy Sanachan, who shared her perspectives on the current gaps in the tours. Using open-ended questions, we gathered honest, unbiased feedback that gave us clearer direction. One of the biggest takeaways was that the tours are currently not inclusive, there is a lack of accessible features or adaptations for visitors with visual or hearing impairments. We also discovered that volunteer guides have limited access to inclusive materials and training, which presents a challenge when it comes to making the tours more engaging for everyone. This insight made us realise the importance of keeping our proposed solutions simple and low-effort to adopt. Moving forward, we aim to focus on practical, easy-to-implement improvements that will support both the guides and the diverse visitors they serve.

July 23, 2025

Research on other botanic gardens on how they go about

Building on what we learned yesterday, today we focused on conducting deeper research to better understand how other botanic gardens design accessible tours. Our goal was to gather inspiration and identify existing best practices that we could adapt or improve upon for the Glasgow Botanic Gardens. We explored examples from both local and international attractions, taking note of creative and practical solutions used to support blind and deaf visitors. These included features such as tactile maps, audio descriptions, sensory trails, and British Sign Language (BSL) interpretation. This helped us broaden our perspective on what’s possible and grounded our project in real-world examples. We also began collecting references and case studies that could support our ideas when we present them to stakeholders later on. Overall, today was all about research and discovery, laying a solid foundation for the development phase and ensuring that our solutions are well-informed and achievable.

July 24, 2025

Tour guide experience

We visited the Glasgow Botanic Gardens to experience one of the guided tours and gain firsthand insight into how it currently operates. Observing the tour revealed that it relies heavily on spoken explanations and visual references, which are not accessible to deaf and blind visitors. This observation confirmed the inclusivity gap we had previously identified. Following the tour, we took the opportunity to speak with the volunteer guide. Through open-ended questions, we aimed to understand what kind of resources or support would help them deliver a more accessible experience. The guide was open to the idea of adapting the tour but highlighted the lack of training and accessible materials as a key challenge. They also expressed the need for solutions that are easy to implement without requiring major changes. This interaction reinforced the importance of designing practical, guide-friendly tools that enhance accessibility without overcomplicating their role.

July 25, 2025

Low Fi Prototype

We began designing our low-fidelity prototypes based on the insights gathered from our stakeholder conversations, accessibility research, and guided tour experience. Our goal was to translate these findings into tangible ideas that could improve the inclusivity of the Botanic Gardens tours. We proposed a textured guidebook featuring tactile flower shapes and braille, QR-code boards linking to BSL/ASL videos and audio descriptions, and a website with accessible multimedia content. These ideas were selected for their simplicity and potential for minimal disruption to existing infrastructure. One of the challenges we encountered was sketching out tactile textures that are distinguishable and meaningful for blind users—it took more time and experimentation than expected. We also learned that QR codes need to be designed with high contrast and large sizing to support partially sighted users. This stage emphasized the value of a multi-sensory approach, which is practical for volunteers and aligned with the needs of diverse users.

Week 2 (28 Jul - 1 Aug 2025)

Development

Developed prototypes and poster layout. Ran usability tests with target users. Explored improvements during a second site visit.

📹 Pitch 2 Video

Development progress presentation showcasing our prototype implementations and user testing results

📸 Week 2 Gallery

1 / 5

Improved Prototype Sketch

Refining our initial sketches based on user feedback and testing insights.

Improved Prototype Sketch

Refining our textured guidebook prototype to have a more intuitive layout and enhanced tactile features.

Website Sketch

Creating design concepts for the website to enhance user experience and accessibility.

Beacon Sketch

A new prototype introduced to enhance safety of the visitors within the gardens.

Second Visit to Glasgow Botanic Gardens

Visiting the garden again to gather more insights and validate our design concepts.

A Small Visit Path

A small visit path in the Glasgow Botanic Gardens which might not be easily accessible to all visitors.

📝 Week 2 Reflections (28 July - 1 August 2025)

1 / 4

July 28, 2025

Developed a more detailed

We dedicated time to further researching inclusive design strategies to enhance our prototype ideas. While our initial concepts were promising, we wanted to ensure they were both practical and truly impactful for the target users. This additional research helped us refine how each element—such as tactile features, QR codes, and multimedia content—could be better tailored to blind and deaf visitors. We explored case studies and accessibility guidelines to validate our direction and spot any overlooked considerations. Alongside this, we began working on the layout for our project poster. We focused on presenting our process clearly, from identifying the problem to proposing inclusive solutions. Visual clarity, accessibility, and concise storytelling were key considerations during the design phase. Laying out the poster also helped us reflect on how far we’ve come and identify areas that still need polishing before the final presentation.

July 30, 2025

Second Site visit

We returned to the Botanic Gardens site to evaluate how our prototype could be integrated into the actual tour environment. This visit was essential in helping us assess the feasibility and practicality of our proposed solutions. We focused particularly on the information boards featuring textured braille and raised patterns, which could help blind visitors understand what certain plants feel like through touch-based representation. Observing the surroundings, we also identified ideal spots where these boards could be installed without disrupting the existing layout. Additionally, we tested the idea of embedding QR codes onto the boards, linking directly to our website with BSL video guides for deaf visitors. However, we also realised a key challenge: the garden covers a large area, which may pose navigation difficulties for visually impaired users. This led us to explore the idea of incorporating beacon-based location aids to assist users in moving between key points on the tour more independently.

July 31, 2025

Refined prototype

We progressed from low-fidelity sketches to more polished, high-fidelity prototypes that bring our accessibility solutions to life. Using feedback from our stakeholder, field visits, and earlier research, we refined our concepts into four key components: a textured guidebook, an information board with braille and QR codes, an accessible website, and an accessibility beacon. The textured guidebook now includes tactile flower shapes and braille, designed to be both educational and visually appealing. Our QR-code information board integrates braille, large print, and links to sign language videos and audio guides. The website connects seamlessly to the QR system and offers British or American Sign Language videos along with full text transcripts. Finally, we developed the concept for an accessibility beacon—bright, easy to use, and equipped with a signal to assist staff or volunteers in guiding users. Each element was crafted with inclusivity and practicality in mind, ensuring that users with different needs are supported throughout the tour.

August 1, 2025

Low Fi Prototype

We focused on planning how to organise and test our prototypes to ensure they are both effective and accessible. To guide this process, we explored existing testing strategies used in inclusive design projects. Our goal was to evaluate usability, accessibility, and clarity from the perspective of blind and deaf users. We developed a multi-layered testing plan that includes peer walkthroughs simulating sensory impairments, heuristic evaluations using accessibility checklists, QR code scan tests, and tactile and scent distinctiveness assessments. This staged approach allows us to catch issues early and avoid reinforcing assumptions before involving real users. We also considered how to structure and facilitate stakeholder testing with visually and hearing-impaired individuals, aiming to gather direct feedback that could drive meaningful refinements. This research and planning phase gave us clarity and confidence in how to proceed with validation, helping us ensure our final prototype genuinely serves the needs of its intended audience.

Week 3 (4 - 8 Aug 2025)

Finalization

Refined and printed final materials. Completed website and accessibility features. Set up and presented at the public exhibition.

📸 Week 3 Gallery

1 / 4

Week 3 Meeting with Stakeholders

Discussing final designs and gathering feedback from stakeholders.

Complete the Poster Design

Finalizing the poster design for the exhibition.
View Poster (PDF)

Week 3 Group Photo

A group photo taken during the finalization week.

Another Week 3 Group Photo

Another group photo taken during the finalization week.

📝 Week 3 Reflections (4 August - 8 August 2025)

1 / 2

August 4 - 5, 2025

Poster Development and Internal Usability Testing

Over these two days, we focused on finalizing our project poster and conducting internal usability testing of both low- and high-fidelity prototypes. Our goal was to create a clear and accessible poster that communicated our design journey, from identifying problems to proposing inclusive solutions. We paid close attention to layout and visual hierarchy to guide the viewer through our process and key outcomes effectively. During internal testing, team members simulated different accessibility needs to evaluate our design concepts. This included checking the texture clarity of tactile guidebook elements, verifying the contrast and sizing of QR codes on mockups, and assessing the layout and content flow of our website prototype. This process revealed areas needing refinement, such as adjusting braille positions for better reach and repositioning QR codes for better visibility. While helpful, internal testing also revealed its limitations. Simulating impairments does not fully replicate the experience of real users. In future iterations, involving actual users earlier would improve the authenticity and accuracy of our feedback. We also encountered unexpected challenges when designing the poster. Presenting complex accessibility ideas in a visually accessible way required multiple revisions and emphasized the difficulty of making communication materials as inclusive as the solutions themselves. This phase taught us the importance of continuous evaluation and highlighted the gap between internal assumptions and actual user experience. It reinforced our understanding that accessible design must be applied across both products and the materials used to present them.

August 6 - 8, 2025

Final Refinements and Project Presentation

In the final project phase, we implemented feedback from our internal testing and prepared our final deliverables, including the project webpage. We refined tactile design specifications, repositioned braille features, improved QR code accessibility, and polished the user interface to improve clarity and ease of use. Developing the website became a key focus. As both a deliverable and demonstration platform, it needed to embody the inclusive principles we advocated. We ensured compatibility with screen readers, used clear layouts, added BSL video content and audio descriptions, and followed accessibility guidelines throughout. Balancing functionality and simplicity was difficult, especially when integrating multiple content formats in a coherent way. The presentation preparation involved crafting a narrative that showed our design process from initial research through to solution implementation. We focused on showing how our ideas addressed the specific accessibility issues observed during fieldwork at the Glasgow Botanic Gardens. Reflecting on our approach, we recognised that involving users earlier in the process would have allowed for deeper validation of our concepts. This final stage highlighted the need for inclusive thinking not just in what we design, but also in how we communicate those designs. Presenting accessibility solutions clearly and persuasively is just as important as making them functional. The experience also strengthened our ability to link design choices to user needs and project goals. Overall, this project helped us develop practical skills in inclusive design, usability testing, and communication. It clarified the importance of testing, iteration, and involving users as early as possible. These are lessons we will carry forward into future projects in both academic and professional settings.

Prototypes & Solutions

Justification

We chose multiple complementary solutions over a single approach because accessibility needs are highly diverse and context-dependent. No single solution can fully address the requirements of all users, especially in environments like public gardens where visitors may have varying sensory, physical, and technological needs. By combining tactile (Braille, textured guidebook), visual (large print, sign language videos), and digital (QR codes, accessible website) options, we ensure that each visitor can engage with the tour in a way that suits them best. This layered strategy also provides redundancy—if one method is unavailable or ineffective for a user, alternative formats are always accessible. Ultimately, our multi-modal approach maximizes inclusion, flexibility, and real-world usability.

Team 6 Members

The Whole Team

Left → Right: Howard, Farm, Yu Cheng, Putri, Xun Yin, Dan

Tee Yu Cheng

Project Website Developer, Video Content Creator
LinkedIn

Farm Yong Wei

Accessibility and Inclusion Coordinator
LinkedIn

Dan Lai Kai Yi

Interactive Systems Developer & Experience Designer
LinkedIn

Putri Nadrah Binte Jefreydin

Web Designer
LinkedIn

Howard Yeo Hong Ding

Inclusive Design Officer
LinkedIn

Chiam Xun Yin

Strategist - Interactive & Digital Experiences
LinkedIn

Team Reflections

In this section, each team member shares their personal reflections on the project. We discuss our experiences collaborating with the Glasgow Botanic Gardens, highlight our individual contributions, and honestly reflect on what we are proud of and what we wish we had done differently. These insights provide a deeper understanding of our journey and growth throughout the project.

Tee Yu Cheng

Project Website Developer, Video Content Creator

Personal Reflection

Working with the Glasgow Botanic Gardens volunteers and visitors gave me valuable insights into visitor behavior and real accessibility challenges, shaping how I developed our solutions. Their feedback on our prototypes showed me that accessibility is not just about meeting guidelines but about creating intuitive experiences for people with diverse needs. My contributions included developing the main project website with responsive, WCAG-compliant design; creating and subtitling pitch videos for hearing accessibility; designing prototype mockups and technical drawings; and building interactive prototype websites to demonstrate real functionality. I am especially proud of creating a consistent visual and technical style across all digital outputs, mastering subtitling workflows, and applying advanced CSS to achieve responsive, inclusive designs. If I could improve one aspect, I would involve users with visual and hearing impairments earlier for usability testing, as real feedback often reveals issues that guidelines overlook. This project transformed my view of accessibility from a simple checklist to a core design principle, and I now approach every project with a focus on multi-sensory experiences to create solutions that benefit all users, not just those with specific needs.

Farm Yong Wei

Accessibility and Inclusion Coordinator

Personal Reflection

Working on this project to improve accessibility at the Glasgow Botanic Gardens has been both eye-opening and rewarding. Through the partner meetings and collaboration with Chrissy and the tour guide, we gained valuable insights into the barriers blind and deaf visitors face. One key learning was that captions alone are not enough for deaf visitors as Sign Language is essential. This challenged our assumptions and highlighted the importance of engaging directly with users. I’m particularly proud of how our solutions focused on simplicity, feasibility and real visitor needs. We designed tactile signages and guide books that engage multiple senses, making the space more inclusive without overburdening volunteer guides. What I’m less proud of is that, due to time constraints, we could not prototype or test all ideas with users. While the concepts arestrong, we missed opportunities for deeper co-design and feedback. In future work, I would prioritize more iterative testing with blind and deaf visitors torefine the solutions further. Overall, I’m proud of how this project moved accessibility from an afterthought to a core value.

Dan Lai Kai Yi

Interactive Systems Developer & Experience Designer

Personal Reflection

Working on prototype development for our accessible tours project, I initially approached the tactile guidebook with significant designer bias. I assumed that basic raised textures would be sufficient for visually impaired users - an assumption that was quickly challenged during our peer user acceptance testing. The most humbling moment came when our test users struggled to distinguish between different tactile elements I had designed. What seemed obvious to me as the creator was completely unclear to actual users. This exposed how my visual perspective had unconsciously influenced supposedly "accessible" design decisions. Through iterative UAT sessions, I learned that effective tactile design requires genuine user validation, not designer assumptions. We had to completely redesign the texture patterns, making them more distinct and intuitive. The process taught me that accessibility isn't about adding features for "other" users - it's about fundamentally rethinking design from multiple sensory perspectives. This experience transformed my approach from proof-seeking to assumption-testing. I now prototype specifically to challenge my biases rather than validate my ideas. The tactile guidebook became not just an accessible tool, but a lesson in inclusive design methodology that will shape my future practice.

Putri Nadrah Binte Jefreydin

Web Designer

Personal Reflection

One thing I’m really proud of is how our team genuinely engaged with stakeholders and designed with empathy at the core. Instead of guessing what blind or deaf visitors needed, we listened, observed and adapted. I’m especially proud of how our prototypes evolved, from tactile guidebooks to QR-integrated BSL videos, each one balancing creativity with simplicity. It was fulfilling to see our shift from just creating interesting features to building an experience that works for everyone, including older volunteers who may not be comfortable with technology. That said, I’m not proud of how we started off with assumptions, thinking tours were mostly about sensory interaction when they were actually more focused on history. I also wish we had more time to properly test our prototypes with real blind or deaf users instead of relying mostly on peer simulations. Some important feedback came too late in the process and limited how much we could refine our ideas. Still, this project taught me that inclusive design is not about flashy solutions but about thoughtful, user-centered decisions that truly improve accessibility.

Howard Yeo Hong Ding

Inclusive Design Officer

Personal Reflection

In this project, I am proud of our solution, and the process on how we approached the problem. We personally went down to the Botanical Garden and attended a tour, to understand the existing facilities of the place and how a tour is conducted by the volunteers. Just by walking around the garden, we have learned many important aspects of the garden that we can tailor improvements towards. We also asked the volunteer tour guide, on what the guides do when they have a blind or deaf person in their group and gained massive insights from that. From all these info, we came up with solutions that we believe are thought through and catered specifically towards the Glasgow Botanic Gardens.

Chiam Xun Yin

Strategist - Interactive & Digital Experiences

Personal Reflection

Strategizing the project direction taught me to balance creativity with practicality. From the start, I focused on aligning our solutions with the gardens’ long-term accessibility goals rather than producing one-off prototypes. I coordinated our timeline, mapped user research into actionable steps, and ensured each prototype contributed to a cohesive visitor journey. My key contribution was shaping a digital ecosystem where tactile, visual, and online elements, like our QR-linked website worked together seamlessly. I’m proud that our multi-layered approach not only made the project more inclusive but also created a solution that could realistically be scaled for future use. One area I wish we had done better was maintaining a tighter communication loop with external partners. More frequent feedback might have prevented last minute changes. This experience reshaped how I approach digital experience design, reminding me that true accessibility is not an add-on but a principle that should guide every stage of a project.

What We Are Proud Of (and Not Proud Of)

As a team, we are proud of how our project evolved from simple sketches into a fully realized, multi-modal accessibility solution. We created tactile guidebooks, Braille-integrated information boards, sign language video content, and an accessible website that all work together to provide an inclusive visitor experience. Our proudest achievement is that our designs are not just functional—they genuinely respond to the diverse needs of deaf and blind visitors, moving beyond checklists to meaningful inclusion.

We are not proud of our delayed user engagement. Early rounds of feedback relied too heavily on assumptions and peer testing rather than real users with disabilities. Although our final prototypes were stronger, we recognize that deeper, continuous co-design would have made our solutions even more authentic and reliable. This lesson taught us that accessibility must be embedded from the first concept, not retrofitted near the end.

Overall, this project taught us the value of empathy, iteration, and multi-perspective design. We leave proud of the solutions we delivered, but more importantly, we carry forward a deeper understanding of inclusive design as a lifelong practice.

Conclusion

Our solution deliberately employs multiple complementary options to address varied accessibility needs, acknowledging that a single solution cannot serve all users or environments effectively. This flexible, multi-modal approach combining tactile, visual, and digital elements enhances adaptability and user choice while maintaining cost-efficiency and scalability. However, we acknowledge key limitations: our user testing relied heavily on peer simulation rather than extensive engagement with actual blind and deaf users, and our QR code system assumes smartphone access that may exclude some visitors. This project revealed the significant gap between accessibility guidelines and real-world implementation, ultimately underscoring that effective inclusive design depends on both diverse, context-sensitive solutions and genuine participatory processes that center the voices of those we aim to serve.