Improving aesthetic access to art for people with visual impairments: creation and aesthetic evaluation of 7 tactile adaptations at the Musée Cantonal des Beaux-Arts (MCBA) of Lausanne

Résumé

This study focuses on adapting seven artworks from the Cantonal Museum of Fine Arts in Lausanne for individuals with visual impairments. While some museum adaptations provide perceptual access, they often fail to convey the aesthetic emotions elicited by the original artworks. This research aimed therefore to create tactile prototypes that offer an aesthetic experience comparable to that of the original works. The methodology unfolded in two phases; first, five professionals in the field and six adults with visual impairments selected the artworks and co-create the prototypes; second, these adaptations were evaluated through a qualitative approach — tactile exploration and feedback — and a quantitative approach using a questionnaire on aesthetic emotions. The results show that tactile adaptations often evoke emotions similar to those experienced with the original artworks. This research emphasises the importance of designing adaptations that go beyond descriptive information, fully integrating the emotional dimension of the artistic experience.

Introduction

The access for individuals with visual impairments to museums and cultural centers can encompass several dimensions: physical accessibility (i.e., the accessibility of the built environment through tactile maps), information accessibility (i.e., providing information about exhibition content via braille labels), and perceptual accessibility (direct access to objects or artworks) (De Almeida et al., 2012). Regarding perceptual accessibility, the challenge is complex: how can visual content, designed by and for sighted individuals, be made accessible to visitors with visual impairments? The value of tactile interaction in museums has been widely discussed (Candlin, 2004, 2009; Levent & Pascual-Leone, 2014; Pye, 2016), with studies indicating that tactile representations of artworks significantly enhance accessibility (Chatterjee, 2020; Guerreiro & Kastrup, 2019). However, tactile devices remain rare and often inadequately designed for users with visual impairments. Although designers may sometimes adopt embossing techniques that are relatively optimised for tactile use, in most cases, visual content is simply transposed into relief or augmented with raised lines. For sighted designers, this may seem sufficient to render the content accessible, as though fingers could function as the eyes of blind individuals. It is crucial to recognise that accessibility extends beyond the medium to encompass full access to information, which is essential for an inclusive sensory experience of the world. Several studies on the recognition of tactile images have shown that understanding raised representations of visual objects is challenging, especially for individuals without prior visual experience or without adequate training (for a review, see Valente et al., 2024a, Valente et al., 2021, Mascle et al., 2022, Theurel et al., 2013). Given the cognitive effort required, questions arise about the perceptual and aesthetic accessibility of these devices within the museum context. Is it reasonable to assume that visitors with visual impairments can have a truly meaningful museum experience by touching a tactile reproduction of a visual content? Has this experience sparked their curiosity, broadened their perception, and conveyed an aesthetic, emotional, and cultural experience that motivates further museum visits?

In this regard, Guerreiro and Kastrup (2019) emphasise that tactile reproductions of artworks are often challenging to interpret, particularly when they are not supplemented with detailed descriptions or contextual information. It is crucial to recognise that a tactile device that merely transposes visual content into relief does not adequately address the preferences of individuals with visual impairment (details and texture of models, use of other senses such as hearing, audio description, streamlined devices that are not overloaded with details...). Moreover, Hetherington (2002) warns against the potential risks associated with tactile engagement with museum objects, noting that frequent handling by visitors may lead to the deterioration of artefacts, thereby limiting the widespread adoption of permanent tactile displays for individuals with visual impairment. Consequently, while touch can enhance the sensory experience of museum visitors, restrictive institutional policies and concerns regarding artwork preservation constrain its effectiveness as an inclusive mode of access to art. It is therefore essential, when adapting artworks, to consider both the potential risk of damaging the original pieces through touch—by offering independent adaptations—and the need to design these adaptations in a way that addresses the specific preferences of the individuals concerned. This can be achieved, for instance, by employing participatory design methods.

While information regarding the historical context, the artist, and the artistic movement of a work is essential for understanding it, it is not enough to lead to aesthetic contemplation. Indeed, the aesthetic experience of an artwork cannot be reduced to a mere accumulation of knowledge. As Herkenhoff Carijó and al. (2015) assert, a genuine aesthetic experience must involve direct contact with the work itself, rather than relying solely on explanations. The term "aesthetic experience" extends beyond the simple sensation of beauty, as many works of art aim to evoke other emotions, such as anxiety, discomfort, or even ugliness. According to Dewey (2005), aesthetics is closely linked to everyday experiences: events such as storms or a good meal can provoke aesthetic emotions. Art intensifies these experiences, and touch can also provide access to them, just as vision does. By disregarding other senses, the aesthetic experience for people with visual impairments is limited. It is therefore crucial to recognise the diversity of sensory channels through which aesthetic emotions can be felt. According to Almeida and al. (2012), aesthetic accessibility involves direct contact with the artwork, allowing visitors, including those who are blind, to have a true sensory experience. This approach differs from informational accessibility, which focuses on providing factual details about the artwork. It is essential not to conflate these two approaches, as the mere transmission of information does not offer the same depth as the aesthetic experience itself. Museums, by focusing solely on access to information in this field, sometimes overlook the aesthetic emotions that original works convey. However, the primary role of a museum, whether devoted to art, history or science is to evoke such an experience. In the absence of this aesthetic experience, information could just as easily be conveyed through a book.

Herkenhoff Carijó and al. (2015) highlight an important point regarding adaptation proposals. The authors explain that even when all the necessary qualities for a model to function are in place, it remains challenging for people with visual impairments to fully appreciate a painting. They explain this frustration by suggesting that the necessary conditions to fully engage with the artwork's aesthetic experience are lacking. While individuals may easily understand the artwork when the model is well structured and made from the right materials, this understanding is not sufficient in the realm of art because it does not provide access to the expressiveness of the work. The issue with models in an inexpressive adaptation is that they convey only a pedagogical meaning by offering a representation of objects, while leaving behind the aesthetic meaning present in the original piece.

When creating an adaptation of an artwork with the goal of conveying an aesthetic emotion, it is essential to consider how the work is translated. This translation is not merely a word-for-word conversion between languages; it involves immersion in the cultures of both languages and adaptation to the target cultural context. Rather than relying on a literal translation, the objective is to produce a text or model that integrates into the targeted culture. This approach allows for an adaptation that is more faithful to the spirit of the work, taking into account the cultural differences and unique perceptions of each culture (Jullien, 2009). Therefore, the aim is not to seek formal similarity with the original, but to maintain the integrity of the aesthetic experience within the cultural context of the work.

In the context of adapting an artwork for individuals with visual impairments, this consideration becomes crucial, especially when it comes to providing genuine access to the aesthetic experience through touch. As Hatwell (2003) and Kleege (2018) emphasize, shape recognition through touch requires more in-depth exploration than visual perception. It is not enough to simply allow visitors to touch the artwork; for the experience to be truly aesthetic, it is necessary to create conditions that go beyond mere tactile perception and incorporate other sensory dimensions. However, there are currently no clear guidelines for designing such devices, although the exploration of multisensory strategies seems promising. These strategies could not only help individuals with visual impairments move beyond a functional perception but also enrich the experience for sighted individuals (Guerreiro & Kastrup, 2019).

Furthermore, Kleege (2013; 2018) argues that tactile experience alone is insufficient to recreate the aesthetic emotion one might feel when observing an artwork visually. To make an artwork genuinely accessible, it is crucial for mediators to encourage verbal exchanges, allowing visitors to share their impressions. These discussions help individuals with visual impairments better engage with the aesthetic experience, going beyond touch and integrating contextual information. Thus, a guided tour should not be limited to tactile interaction alone, but should also foster verbal communication in order to create a fully immersive experience, akin to the emotions felt when engaging with the artwork in its original visual form.

Method

This study was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, we created seven tactile adaptations of artworks with the participation of the individuals concerned. In the second phase, we sought to evaluate the aesthetic accessibility of these adaptations for individuals with visual impairments.

In a creative process (phase 1), we sought to go beyond a simple transposition of a visual content into a tactile form by selecting, with the participation of these individuals, interactions with the material and tactile sensations capable of triggering emotions linked to those originally conveyed in the artworks.

To confirm the hypothesis that this type of adaptation enables aesthetic access, we conducted a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of aesthetic access (phase 2). First an exploratory qualitative study with the individuals concerned to explore the emotions evoked by the prototypes. Then, based on the results of this initial phase, we selected an aesthetic emotions questionnaire established by Israeli to be completed by the individuals concerned (Israeli, 1928).

The elicitation of emotions by art is one of the primary functions attributed to art by Plato and Aristotle (Carroll et al., 2013). Comparing the emotional reactions allows for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the adaptations, as they offer similar access to the aesthetic emotions experienced by sighted individuals. By comparing these emotions, it is possible to determine whether the adaptations successfully convey the original artwork’s expressiveness. If both groups experience similar emotions, this suggests that the adaptations go beyond mere tactile reproduction and succeed in transmitting the emotions intended by the artist, enriching the museum experience for all visitors.

Participants

Phase 1. Selection and creation of prototypes to allow aesthetic access

Five professionals in the field of visual impairments and six adults with visual impairments participated in the selection of the artworks and the creation of prototypes. The professionals included three transcription specialists from the Fondation Asile des Aveugles in Lausanne, a retired occupational therapist who worked with the Association pour le bien des aveugles (ABA), and a cultural mediator from the Musée d'Art et d'Histoire (MAH) in Geneva. The participants with visual impairments included one blind adult, three adults with severe visual impairments, and two adults with moderate visual impairments. The participants should not have had any associated disorders.

Phase 2. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of aesthetic access of prototypes

Seven sighted adults and six adults with visual impairments, participated in the evaluation phase of the adaptations. First, participants explored the models, and their perceived emotions were recorded. Then, an aesthetic emotions questionnaire (Israeli, 1928), reflecting the emotions expressed during the exploration, was administered. The participants were from the association L’art d’Inclure, based in Switzerland, which organises cultural outings for individuals with visual impairments. Participants did not have any additional disabilities associated with their visual impairments.

Among the seven visually impaired participants included in the two phases: four participated in both phases, two took part solely in the selection and creation phase (phase 1), two only in the evaluation phase (phase 2). Appendix, Table A1 provides detailed characteristics of both the sighted participants and participants with visual impairments, based on the ICD-10 classification.

Procedure

Phase 1. Selection and creation of prototypes to allow aesthetic access

Recently, the use of participatory design to create multisensory content for individuals with visual impairments has been discussed (Albouys-Perrois et al., 2018; Pires et al., 2022; Valente et al., 2024b). This approach involves users in the design process, ensuring the product meets the criteria of acceptability, usability, and utility (Tricot et al., 2003). Valente et al. (2024b) applied this method to co-design multisensory books and an educational tool for children with visual impairments, collaborating with teachers, publishers, and the children themselves.

During this phase, we consulted five professionals about the feasibility of adapting eleven artworks (eight paintings, one sculpture, one installation, and one video) from the permanent collection of the MCBA, as featured in the visitor guide. The professionals were asked to rate the statement “I think it is feasible to adapt this artwork for an audience with visual impairments” on a scale from 1 to 10. The ratings and comments gathered led to the selection of seven artworks. A co-author of this article (Isler, A.) designed the first version of the adaptation prototypes for these artworks as part of her master's thesis.

During the creation phase, our goal was to identify materials and textures that best reflect the emotions conveyed by the original artwork. To achieve this, we sought to closely match the materials depicted in the piece. For example, in Le Glacier du Rosenlaui, which portrays a natural landscape featuring elements such as fir trees, a stream, a glacier, and rocks, we sourced these materials directly from nature. The model was thus composed of pebbles, rocks, fir branches, and moss. To recreate the glacier, we used a technique commonly employed in tactile books, incorporating cornstarch covered with a thin fabric. This technique preserves the sensation of cold and produces a subtle crunching sound when pressed, mimicking the texture of snow.

By using natural materials, we ensured that they were familiar to individuals with visual impairments, thereby reducing cognitive effort required for interpretation (Bizzi, 2009). Across all adaptations, we carefully selected a variety of materials to create a rich aesthetic experience—one that evokes emotions and goes beyond simply conveying informational content about the original artwork.

Additionally, we followed key recommendations outlined by Bizzi (2009). For instance, the author emphasises that the dimensions of tactile adaptations should not exceed the width of two hands placed side by side to prevent cognitive overload. Colour is also an important factor, as it ensures accessibility for individuals with low vision. Moreover, relief features should be distinct and well-defined, allowing for clear differentiation of details. Finally, the adaptation should provide a pleasant tactile experience, fostering engagement with the content and enhancing aesthetic enjoyment.

Phase 2. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of aesthetic access of prototypes

During the qualitative phase of exploration, participants received only a brief description of each artwork without further explanation. They were then invited to touch the adaptations, describe what they perceived through tactile exploration, provide feedback, and suggest improvements. According to Romeo et al. (2024), participants' feedback highlights the importance of co-creation in producing accessible and enriching cultural content for all. Unrecognised elements were noted by the researcher. After this initial exploration, the researcher provided information about each artwork, and participants commented again on the adaptations, explaining what worked and what did not. Based on the feedback, revised versions of the prototypes were created, incorporating the relevant input. This phase also allowed us to collect the first data on the emotions evoked upon encountering the artworks. During this initial exploration, participants with visual impairments expressed their emotions upon discovering the adaptations. Based on this initial feedback, we selected the Israeli questionnaire for the quantitative phase of the study, which aims to compare the emotions experienced by individuals with visual impairments when discovering the adaptations with those felt by sighted individuals in front of the original artworks. We did not utilise all the emotions present in the original questionnaire by Israeli (1928), as it seemed more relevant to focus solely on the emotions perceived by individuals with visual impairments during their initial exploration of the adaptations.

For the quantitative phase, the prototypes were presented in a room separate from the MCBA exhibitions (the exhibition space was temporarily closed due to the COVID-19 health crisis). The original artworks were projected on a screen in the background. A cultural mediator, trained in describing artworks for individuals with visual impairments, presented each piece. Following this presentation, a questionnaire on aesthetic emotions was administered. Seven sighted visitors explored the artworks within the exhibition and then completed the same questionnaire. The aim of this questionnaire was to compare the aesthetic emotions experienced by participants with visual impairments while discovering the tactile prototypes of the artworks with those of sighted participants encountering the original pieces. Participants were asked to express their aesthetic emotions for each adaptation using a 6-point Likert scale. The aesthetic emotions included: feelings of calm, solitude, agitation, surprise, adventure, curiosity, pleasure, and discomfort. The mean differences in emotions evoked between participants with visual impairments who explored the final prototypes and sighted participants who viewed the original artworks were calculated (Distance = |Sighted Score – Participants with visual Impairments Score|). A greater distance indicates a larger discrepancy between the emotions evoked in each participant group.

Results

Selection and creation of prototypes to allow aesthetic access

The seven works of art that were selected to be adapted were works of Ducros (score 8.5 of possible adaptation), Diday (score 9.0), Hodler (score 8.5), Bailly (score 8.0), Soulages (score 5.0), Attia (score 9.5) and Charrière (score 9.5). One of the selection criteria discussed with the professionals related to the different means used for representing the art works (abstract/representational painting, sculpture, installation). This would allow us to establish whether it is possible to adapt almost anything or if certain mediums are more suitable for adaptation for people with visual impairments. This diversity of mediums allowed us to confront the different challenges of adapting works presented in museums. Appendix, Table A2 presents complete results with scores given by professionals on the possible degree of adaptation of eleven works of art as well as their comments on the seven selected works of art.

Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of aesthetic access of prototypes

The first version of the adaptation prototypes of the seven selected artworks were created and presented to seven participants with visual impairments. Participants pointed out that they could more easily understand a work in a 3D model rather than in 2D, because the layout of the elements is closer to what they know in reality.

The examples below present the main modifications made between the first and second adaptations (final prototypes) based on these results. The seven final prototypes are presented in Appendix C, Figures A1–A7.

Source : Isler, A.

Figure 1. Original work.Photograph of Kader Attia’s artwork Les Gueules cassées, taken at the MCBA.

Description of the image: A museum gallery with white walls and a grey floor displays three unpainted wooden busts, all the same size and spaced apart. Each stands on a tall, slender dark metal base. The busts depict distorted human figures with matte, slightly irregular surfaces and stylized yet expressive faces. The one on the left is shown in profile, the central one is placed farther back, and the one on the right is shown in three-quarter view.

Figure 2. First adaptation. A single clay bust from Les Gueules cassées.

Description of the image: The designer sculpted a bust in clay and placed it on the table. For one visitor, it was important to adapt the original structure supporting the busts (metal pillars). Thus, the designer then sculpted 3 little busts and added large stools to support the busts (figure 3) (design by Isler, A.)

Figure 3. Second adaptation (final prototype). Four clay busts representing human figures with distorted faces.

Description of the image: We see a tactile adaptation of Gueules cassées by Kader Attia. It is composed of four clay busts representing human figures with distorted faces. On the left, a larger bust is placed directly on the surface. On the right, three smaller busts rest on thin dark metal stands. The faces are asymmetrical, with irregular and altered features. The forms are simple, rough, and hand-shaped.The overall piece evokes wounded or reconstructed faces and conveys a sense of fragility, suffering, and humanity. (Design by Isler, A.).

Figure 4. Original work. Painting by Soulages.

Description of the image: A vertical abstract painting in very dark tones is composed of large black, dark brown, and burgundy rectangular blocks. At the center, touches of white and light grey create a lighter area that contrasts with the surrounding darkness. In the lower part, a broad horizontal black shape closes the composition like a base.

Figure 5. First adaptation of Soulages’ painting.

Description of the image: Adaptation of Soulages’s work: The designer aimed to emphasise the painting's lines, initially using cardboard strips of various materials for tactile exploration. Participants felt this wasn't representative of Soulages's work, with two unable to detect his distinctive style. (Design by Isler, A.)

Figure 6. Second adaptation (final prototype) of Soulages’ painting

Description of the image: Following the participants’ feedback, the designer revised the adaptation into an oil-painted canvas with thick paint lines for tactile perception. (Design by Isler, A.).

Figure 7. Original work. Alice Bailly’s wool painting Les Rythmiciennes

Description of the image: A vertical figurative wool artwork in bright, contrasting colors shows three dancing figures occupying almost the entire surface. The central figure stands in the foreground with hands raised above the head, while the two other figures, dressed in light-toned garments, are rendered with elongated, angular, and geometric forms. The background is composed of red, purple, pink, and beige bands and shapes, creating a strong sense of rhythm, movement, and energy.

Figure 8. First adaptation of Bailly’s wool painting.

Description of the image: For this adaptation, the designer employed wool to recreate the main components of the painting on a flat surface, highlighting the central figure, which can be detached for enhanced understanding, along with the two dancers. Participants with moderate visual impairments requested the inclusion of details, as the adaptation helps them perceive them more clearly. The designer had initially chosen to remove details from the original painting but later incorporated the embracing arms of the right figure in the final version. (Design by Isler, A.).

Figure 9. Second adaptation (final prototype) of Bailly’s wool painting.

Description of the image: The designer had initially chosen to remove details from the original painting but following the participants’ feedback, the designer revised the adaptation and incorporated the embracing arms of the right figure in the final version. (Design by Isler, A.).

Results from qualitative evaluations showed comparable reactions between the group of sighted individuals and the group of individuals with visual impairments. For example, in response to the adaptation of Bailly’s work, a participant with visual impairments commented: “There is a lot of agitation in this work, it seems to be going in all directions!” During the visit with sighted participants, one visitor remarked: “It’s very turbulent!” Another parallel between the emotional responses of the two groups occurred with Attia’s work. A Greek participant with visual impairments, after touching the adaptation, said: “You know, there was a civil war in Greece in 1945? And it was quite horrific… this one is very difficult [referring to the adaptation].” The tactile experience of Kader Attia’s artwork depicting gueules cassées (disfigured soldiers from the war) evoked painful memories and emotions for the participant. During the visit with sighted individuals, one person exclaimed: “These disfigured faces are hard to look at.”.

Results from the quantitative phase using the Israeli questionnaire (1928) showed that distance between mean scores of emotions evoked by participants with visual impairments that explored the final prototypes and those of sighted participants that explored the original works were relatively low for all artworks (Min = 0, Max = 2.80, Med = 0.91). Detailed results are presented in Appendix, Table A4.

Attia's work, showed the greatest distance (2.80) for “agitation”. Participants with visual impairments gave higher scores than sighted participants did. Participants with visual impairments noted that they felt restlessness in a negative way.

Diday’s work seems to be the adaptation that conveyed the least similar emotions. It showed the greatest distance for four evoked emotions (2.60 for surprise, 2.00 for adventure, 2.09 for curiosity and 2.31 for pleasure), with participants with visual impairments giving higher scores than sighted participants.

Hodler's work, seems to be the adaptation that provoked the most similar emotions. The scores of sighted participants and participants with visual impairments were identical for the emotions “calm” and “agitation”. The greatest difference was 1.26.

The feeling of adventure showed the greatest distance for four works (2.40 for Ducros, 1.26 for Hodler, 2.00 for Diday and 2.37 for Bailly). For these works, participants with visual impairments gave higher scores than sighted participants.

Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate whether tactile adaptations of artworks could provide aesthetic access for people with visual impairments, beyond mere perceptual or informational accessibility. Overall, the qualitative and quantitative results suggest that the tactile adaptations often elicited emotional responses similar to those reported by sighted visitors in front of the original artworks. This finding supports the idea that tactile adaptations can convey part of the expressive and emotional dimensions of artworks when they are not designed as simple raised reproductions, but as translations of the aesthetic experience into another sensory modality.

First, the results confirm the importance of distinguishing perceptual access from aesthetic access. While perceptual access allows visitors to identify shapes, objects, or compositional elements, aesthetic access involves a more complex experience, including emotions, memories, bodily sensations, and personal interpretations. In this respect, the present study extends previous reflections suggesting that access to art for people with visual impairments should not be limited to descriptive or informational content. The tactile prototypes created in this study did not aim to reproduce the artworks in a visually faithful manner, but rather to identify tactile, material, and spatial qualities capable of evoking emotions related to those produced by the original works. This approach is consistent with the idea that an adaptation should function as a translation rather than as a literal copy: what matters is not only formal resemblance, but the preservation of the artwork’s expressive force in another sensory and cultural context.

Second, the results highlight the role of materials in the construction of aesthetic experience. Several participants reacted not only to the shapes of the adaptations, but also to their textures, temperatures, densities, and resistance under the fingers. These sensory qualities seemed to contribute directly to the emotions expressed during tactile exploration. For example, rough, fragile, or irregular materials could evoke discomfort, vulnerability, or tension, whereas softer or more familiar textures could support feelings of calm or curiosity. This suggests that material choices should be considered as central components of tactile adaptation, rather than as secondary technical details. In other words, the material is not merely a support for information: it participates in the meaning and emotional tone of the adapted artwork.

Third, the study underlines the importance of participatory design. The differences observed between the first and final prototypes show that the feedback of people with visual impairments was essential for improving both the intelligibility and the aesthetic relevance of the adaptations. Some initial choices made by the designer, such as simplifying details or selecting certain textures, were reconsidered after participants’ comments. This process shows that accessibility cannot be fully anticipated from a sighted perspective. People with visual impairments bring specific expertise regarding tactile exploration, cognitive load, spatial understanding, and emotional engagement with materials. Their participation therefore appears necessary not only for improving usability, but also for ensuring that the adaptation remains aesthetically meaningful.

However, several points require a cautious interpretation. The similarity between the emotions reported by sighted participants and participants with visual impairments does not mean that both groups had identical experiences. The same emotion label may refer to different sensory, cognitive, or autobiographical processes. For sighted visitors, emotions may have been triggered by visual composition, color, light, or previous visual references. For participants with visual impairments, emotions may have emerged through touch, verbal mediation, memories of objects or materials, and the bodily rhythm of exploration. Thus, the objective should not be to recreate an identical experience, but rather to make possible an equivalent aesthetic encounter through another sensory pathway.

Another methodological issue concerns the use of an aesthetic emotions questionnaire originally developed for visual art appreciation. Although this tool made it possible to compare the two groups, it may not fully capture the specificity of tactile aesthetic experience. Touch involves temporality, movement, pressure, texture, temperature, and proprioceptive engagement. These dimensions are only partially represented in traditional emotion questionnaires. Future studies should therefore develop or adapt evaluation tools that better account for the specific features of tactile and multisensory aesthetic experience. Such tools could include dimensions such as bodily engagement, exploratory pleasure, tactile surprise, material familiarity, perceived expressiveness, and the desire to continue exploring.

This study also has theoretical implications. It suggests that aesthetic experience is not tied to vision alone, but can emerge through other sensory modalities when appropriate conditions are created. This supports a broader conception of museum accessibility: people with visual impairments should not only have access to knowledge about artworks, but also to the emotional and expressive experience that museums aim to provide. From this perspective, tactile adaptations are not merely compensatory tools. They can become independent aesthetic objects that mediate a meaningful encounter between the visitor and the artwork.

From a practical perspective, the findings invite museums to rethink accessibility policies. Instead of offering tactile devices only as educational supplements, museums could integrate tactile and multisensory adaptations into their curatorial and mediation practices. Such devices may benefit not only visitors with visual impairments, but also sighted visitors, by encouraging slower, more embodied, and more reflective forms of art appreciation. The study therefore supports the development of inclusive museum practices in which accessibility is not added after the exhibition has been designed, but considered from the beginning as part of the artistic and cultural experience.

Several limitations must nevertheless be acknowledged. The sample size was small, particularly among participants with visual impairments, and the profiles of visual impairment were heterogeneous. This limits the generalisation of the results. In addition, the artworks selected for the study differed greatly in terms of medium, style, scale, and emotional content, making it difficult to determine which characteristics of the original works or of the adaptations were most responsible for the emotional responses observed. Moreover, the presence of verbal mediation during the exploration may have influenced the participants’ understanding and emotional interpretation of the adaptations. Future research should examine more precisely the respective roles of touch, verbal description, previous artistic knowledge, and social interaction in the construction of aesthetic experience.

Further studies would also be useful to compare different types of adaptations for the same artwork, for example a material-based tactile version, and a multisensory version including sound or smell. Such comparisons would make it possible to identify which design choices are most effective for conveying aesthetic emotions. Finally, longitudinal research could explore whether repeated exposure to tactile artworks changes visitors’ confidence, strategies of exploration, and engagement with museums over time.

In conclusion, this study shows that tactile adaptations can contribute to aesthetic access to art when they are conceived as sensory and emotional translations rather than as simple reproductions of visual forms. The results encourage museums, researchers, designers, and people with visual impairments to collaborate in developing adaptations that preserve not only the informational content of artworks, but also their expressive and emotional power. In this sense, aesthetic accessibility should be understood as a central dimension of cultural participation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to warmly thank all the individuals who voluntarily participated in this study, especially the members of the Vaudoise association L’Artd’inclure. We also express our gratitude to the MCBA for their hospitality and trust. It was a true pleasure to collaborate with you on our research on artistic accessibility. Finally, we would like to thank the professionals as well as the Asile des Aveugles foundation in Lausanne for their valuable contribution.

Editor : Lola Chennaz

Appendix

Appendix A

Participant characteristics

Table A1. Characteristics of sighted participants and participants with visual impairments (phases 1 and 2)

This table presents the participant number, study phase, visual impairment category according to ICD-10 when applicable, and gender. Participants 8 to 14 were sighted participants in phase 2.

Participant	Phase	Category of visual impairment (ICD-10 revision)	Gender
1	1	5	Female
2	2	5	Female
3	1 and 2	3	Female
4	1 and 2	3	Female
5	1 and 2	2	Female
6	1	1	Female
7	1 and 2	1	Female
8	2	Sighted	Female
9	2	Sighted	Female
10	2	Sighted	Female
11	2	Sighted	Female
12	2	Sighted	Female
13	2	Sighted	Female
14	2	Sighted	Female

Appendix B

Choice and creation of prototypes

This appendix presents the scores given by professionals for the degree of adaptation (maximum score = 10) of the eleven artworks, as well as the works that were selected.

The artworks from the tour that were not selected:

Gleyre “Les romains passant sous le joug ou la bataille du Léman”. Scores degree of adaptation : 1.0. Comments: There are many details, the painting is very busy and represents an allegory so it is too difficult to adapt it. The adaptation would be possible in the form of choreography or by walking along the table to understand dimensions.

Biéler “Devant l’église de Saint-Germain à Savièse”. Scores degree of adaptation: 6.0. Comments: The shots are very close, and the looks and postures of the characters are difficult to represent. An adaptation would perhaps be possible in the form of a story.

Broodhears “Le Drapeau noir”. Scores degree of adaptation: 6.0. Comments: There are few elements but not easy to describe. The adaptation could be interesting on the finger.

Otth “Limite E”. Scores degree of adaptation : 6.0. Comments: It’s a video and we don’t know any particular technique to adapt it. Some views could be adapted. Audio description would be recommended.

The artworks from the tour that were selected:

Ducros “L’arc de Titus”. Scores degree of adaptation: 8.5. Comments : Could be adapted in 3D; The use of perspective is interesting; VI people would understand that small details equal far perspective, and large details equal near perspective; Interesting to use textures (water, stones, plants) on a solid model; Caution: could be damaged quickly.

Diday “Le glacier de Rosenlaui”. Scores degree of adaptation: 9.0. Comments : Same arguments as Ducros.

Hodler “Le lac Léman vu de Chexbres”. Scores degree of adaptation: 8.5. Comments : Few elements to adapt; Interesting to adapt because different from Hodler's more abstract work.

Bailly “Les rythmiciennes”. Scores degree of adaptation: 8.0. Comments: Interesting to adapt because lots of different materials; Challenging because of the abstract rhythm and the silhouettes; Caution: make the silhouettes recognisable by touch from geometric shapes.

Soulages “Peinture”. Scores degree of adaptation: 5.0. Comments : Difficult to adapt because abstract but interesting to introduce the movement of abstraction; Could be adapted in a canvas composed of thick paint representing the important gestures ; Interesting to add material that artist used (brushes, rollers).

Attia “Culture, another nature repaired”. Scores degree of adaptation: 9.5. Comments : Could be adapted into 3D models to be touched by visitors.

Charrière “pacific fiction – study for monument”. Scores degree of adaptation: 9.5. Comments : Same arguments as Attia.

Appendix C

Final prototypes

Figure A1. Adaptation of the Ducros’s painting.

Description of the image: It is a tactile adaptation of the Arch of Titus, placed on a square light wooden base. The structure is made of clay, recalling the colors of the original painting, and shaped by hand. The arch takes the form of a massive monument. Its central part is pierced by a large arched opening that passes all the way through the structure. The walls are thick, and the upper part forms a horizontal block resting on two vertical supports, like a monumental arch.

Figure A2. Adaptation of Diday’s painting.

Description of the image: We see a tactile adaptation of the Rosenlaui Glacier, presented as a three-dimensional landscape. The whole piece rests on a rectangular base and recreates a mountain scene. At the back, two large rocks dominate the composition. On the rock to the left, there is a material suggesting snow (cornstarch covered with white fabric to reproduce the crunching sound of snow). Behind them, white cotton wool forms a cloudy background. In the center and foreground, several stones of different sizes are arranged irregularly, like on a rocky mountain terrain. On the right, two small animal figurines are placed on a rock. The overall impression is that of a miniature natural landscape, combining rock, vegetation, and glacier.

Figure A3. Attia’s adaptation

Description of the image: We see a tactile adaptation of Gueules cassées by Kader Attia. It is composed of four clay busts representing human figures with distorted faces. On the left, a larger bust is placed directly on the surface. On the right, three smaller busts rest on thin dark metal stands. The faces are asymmetrical, with irregular and altered features. The forms are simple, rough, and hand-shaped.The overall piece evokes wounded or reconstructed faces and conveys a sense of fragility, suffering, and humanity.

Figure A4. Charrière’s adaptation

Description of the image: These two images show a tactile adaptation of an installation by Julian Charrière. The first presents the arrangement of the elements: numerous grey, shiny spheres are gathered in a dense central cluster, while others are scattered around it. The second shows the shape and size of one of these elements: a large oval form resembling a coconut covered in lead. Its surface is smooth, grey, and shiny. Together, the two images convey both the overall organization of the installation and the material appearance of its components.

Figure A5. Hodler’s adaptation

Description of the image: This tactile adaptation represents a landscape in relief. The lake is made of plastic with gel underneath to create the effect of water. The clouds are made of cotton wool, and the vineyard is represented with synthetic grass. Together, these materials convey the main elements of the landscape through texture and volume.

Figure A6. Bailly’s adaptation

Description of the image: This tactile adaptation shows three dancing figures in relief. The central figure is left in bare cardboard, making it stand out clearly from the rest of the composition. The two figures in the background are made of cardboard covered with wool, recalling the material used in the original artwork. The background is also composed of layered strands of wool in vivid colors, creating a strong sense of movement and rhythm.

Figure A7. Soulages’s adaptation

Description of the image: We see a vertical tactile adaptation in very dark tones. The composition is built from large rectangular blocks, mainly black, dark brown, and burgundy. These shapes are placed side by side like solid masses, with brushed edges that create an impression of thick material and depth. At the center, a lighter area draws the eye: touches of white and light grey appear like a light passing through the dark mass of the composition. This brightness contrasts strongly with the overall darkness. In the lower part, a broad, dense horizontal black shape seems to close the composition, somewhat like a base or a bar

Appendix D

Final evaluation results

Table A2. Detailed results from final evaluation of prototypes and original version of works of art

This table presents, for each artwork and each aesthetic emotion, the mean score given by participants with visual impairments (VI), the mean score given by sighted participants (S), and the distance between the two scores.

Artwork	Aesthetic emotion	VI	S	Distance
Hodler	Calm	4.0	4.0	0.0
Hodler	Loneliness	3.6	4.1	0.5
Hodler	Agitation	1.0	1.0	0.0
Hodler	Surprise	1.8	1.3	0.8
Hodler	Adventure	2.4	1.1	1.2
Hodler	Curiosity	2.6	2.0	0.6
Hodler	Pleasure	3.6	3.4	0.1
Hodler	Unpleasant feeling	1.0	0.5	0.5
Ducros	Calm	3.0	3.3	0.3
Ducros	Loneliness	1.7	1.8	0.1
Ducros	Agitation	2.0	1.2	0.7
Ducros	Surprise	3.0	1.2	1.8
Ducros	Adventure	3.4	1.0	2.4
Ducros	Curiosity	4.0	2.3	1.7
Ducros	Pleasure	4.2	2.3	1.7
Ducros	Unpleasant feeling	1.0	0.1	0.9
Diday	Calm	2.2	1.3	0.9
Diday	Loneliness	3.0	4.4	1.4
Diday	Agitation	3.0	3.3	0.3
Diday	Surprise	3.6	1.0	2.6
Diday	Adventure	4.0	2.0	2.0
Diday	Curiosity	3.8	1.7	2.1
Diday	Pleasure	3.6	1.3	2.3
Diday	Unpleasant feeling	2.0	2.3	0.3
Bailly	Calm	2.8	2.1	0.7
Bailly	Loneliness	2.4	0.7	1.7
Bailly	Agitation	4.0	2.7	1.1
Bailly	Surprise	3.8	2.1	1.6
Bailly	Adventure	3.8	1.4	2.4
Bailly	Curiosity	3.8	2.3	1.3
Bailly	Pleasure	3.0	3.8	0.8
Bailly	Unpleasant feeling	1.2	0.4	0.8
Soulages	Calm	3.5	1.0	2.5
Soulages	Loneliness	3.2	2.3	0.9
Soulages	Agitation	2.6	2.0	0.6
Soulages	Surprise	2.0	2.5	0.5
Soulages	Adventure	2.0	2.0	0.0
Soulages	Curiosity	2.2	3.4	1.2
Soulages	Pleasure	1.8	1.7	0.1
Soulages	Unpleasant feeling	1.8	2.5	0.7
Attia	Calm	2.2	0.3	1.9
Attia	Loneliness	3.4	3.2	0.2
Attia	Agitation	3.8	1.0	2.8
Attia	Surprise	3.8	3.9	0.1
Attia	Adventure	1.8	0.0	1.8
Attia	Curiosity	3.8	2.8	1.0
Attia	Pleasure	1.6	0.0	1.6
Attia	Unpleasant feeling	4.0	4.1	0.1
Charrière	Calm	3.0	0.5	2.5
Charrière	Loneliness	3.0	2.8	0.2
Charrière	Agitation	3.0	1.8	1.2
Charrière	Surprise	3.0	2.7	0.3
Charrière	Adventure	3.2	1.0	2.2
Charrière	Curiosity	3.4	3.2	0.2
Charrière	Pleasure	2.2	0.4	1.8
Charrière	Unpleasant feeling	3.6	2.2	1.4