Access research Phase 3: Reflecting on our learnings at Advanced Media Production PROTO in Gateshead

As part of our accessibility research for Where We Meet, we’ve now completed Phase 3 at Advanced Media Production PROTO in Gateshead. This final phase brought together everything we’ve explored in Phase 1 & 2, and marked an important shift: from testing ideas to preparing them for sharing as guidelines to the wider field of immersive performance.

Our key objectives

At Proto in Gateshead, we brought our research into its final testing phase - running co-creation workshops with disabled participants, and refining our prototypes in response to real-time feedback. In this phase we focused on:

• Exploring the full access journey - from pre-show information to post-show reflection.

• Testing captioning and audio solutions with d/Deaf and HoH audiences.

• Deepening our understanding of sensory needs and consent in immersive formats.

• Opening the work to broader feedback, including practitioners and people with lived experience of mobility barriers.

Learnings from the full access journey

What we tested

• Updating the website information
  We revisited all the information presented on the website, and added new guides, including an audio introduction and soundscape example.

• Updating information for arrival at the venue
  We tested having someone from the team meet the audience at the start. We also developed a poster with basic access information and QR code to the detailed access information. From previous iterations we know many audience members do not read our access info before arriving at the venue so this acted as a last minute opportunity to get support and access to the provisions in place.

• Updated the chaperone script
  We updated this to use simplified, inclusive language, adding a bilateral agreement for consent. This aimed to provide consistency across performances and helped audiences feel more comfortable by allowing more space for questions, and giving more information on who to go to for support

Learnings

• Pre-show materials are effective
  The website guide and written access information help audiences feel more prepared and confident before attending. These materials set expectations clearly and allow for informed choices.

• Arrival information reduced uncertainty but did identify a key access gap for d/Deaf & HoH
  Clearer guidance helped audiences feel more prepared, but d/Deaf participants still faced barriers when requesting access support, as some participants use BSL as their first lanaguage. The chaperone’s verbal-only onboarding wasn’t accessible to all either. A written or interactive tool could offer a more inclusive and consistent experience across the board.

• Opportunity for a video-based onboarding tool
  Based on feedback across all areas, a suggestion was made to create a short onboarding video. This would act as a visual story of the performance, complement the existing audio guide, and include BSL interpretation - offering a more inclusive entry point into the experience.

Learnings from the d/Deaf and HoH workshop

We invited a group of d/Deaf and HoH participants to a dedicated workshop to test our captioning and audio solutions in a short version of the performance. We followed up with a feedback session with our accessibility consultants and performers.

What we tested

• Captioning solutions
  A new version of our AR prototype using the Rokid Max AR Glasses. As well as new prototypes on phones including different mounting solutions and spatial visualisations of the monologues.

• Options for hearing aids and tracker mounts
  Evaluating the final options for hearing aid users, and looking at tracker options for non headphone wearing audience members.

• Full access journey
  Specifically for d/Deaf audience members

Learnings

• AR captioning did not perform well at all! (and that was a surprise)
  It was the most immersive but not the most comfortable. It created new sensory issues and made the text difficult to read while intercating with the dancers. Overall, it shows potential but the hardware is still too limited.

• Phone-based captions and arm mounts were the most popular
  But not without issues (arm gets tired, less eye contact in interactions, text too small). Interestingly, the phone and neck mount solution was the least popular.

• Audio tech is deeply individual
  What works well for one person may not for another. Offering multiple headset options and time to test them is crucial. We did vlidate that we now have the right range of solutions for increased hearing aids compatibility.

• Some participants needed reassurance
  When switching from their own tech (e.g. hearing aids connected to phones) to our equipment. We need to build trust and allow time for that transition.

• Embedding BSL signs into the performance by dancers worked well
  Participants and performers felt a greater sense of connection.

Learnings from the Sensory & Consent Session

In this session, we focused on how the emotional and physical interactions within Where We Meet are experienced by neurodiverse audiences or those with sensory sensitivities.

Learnings

• Positive elements
  Pre-show materials were well received. Participants appreciated the clarity and structure of the information, and felt it prepared them for the experience.

• Comfort in flexibility
  The lack of expectation around interaction helped reduce anxiety. Participants felt they could “just be” in the space.

• Feeling engaged in different ways
  Participants appreciated that connection didn’t require active interaction. Simply observing or being present in the space still provided a meaningful experience.

• More refinement is needed on the guidance and previews
  We identified a few factors from our participants that we can work on to ensure they are comfortable, considerations such as providing trigger warnings, a preview of the sound world, guidance on taking a break and clarity around roles.

Learnings from the Mobility session

For this session, we invited Kate Stanforth, accessibility consultant, to help us explore how the space and interactions in Where We Meet could welcome audiences with mobility needs, including wheelchair users.

Learnings

• Improvements on the journey to the show
  Participants wanted clearer access info in advance including detailed instructions on venue accessibility and mapping the full route to the performance space with consistent signage throughout. Making access visible in marketing and inviting disabled organisations was also highlighted as essential.

• Improvements on the performance set up (equipment and space)
  Offering wireless headphone solutions is important as the wires can get stuck in wheelchairs, and recommendations to limit wheelchair users to 2 people per performance. We need to offer spaces to rest and still watch, and give clear instructions on this at the beginning.

• Improvements to be made on the language for the moments of interaction
  We need to offer clearer instructions for interactions and be mindful of avoiding body part specific language so as to not alienate audience members with limb differences or with movements they cannot achieve.

Our next steps

We’ll now be bringing together everything we've learned into a set of practical guidelines designed to support others working in immersive and interactive performance. These will be shared openly with the wider creative sector, offering tools, strategies, and reflections to help artists and makers embed a disability-first approach at the core of their design processes.

__

Acknowledgements:

This Access Research project is led by Clarice Hilton, with the support of Jané E Mackenzie, focusing on D/deaf and hard-of-hearing. Clarice also leads the sensory and consent research.
Thank you to Kate Stanforth for consulting on Mobility.
Thank you to all the disabled participants for joining in the research.
Thank you to our BSL interpreter for supporting these sessions: Dee King and Sophie Kennard.
Thank you to Advanced Media Production PROTO, Digital Catapult and Target3D for supporting this phase of the project.