Digital curtain call: Accessibility as seen in opera houses' online platforms

Abstract

Accessibility is a crucial part of the tourism industry, especially in this day and age when opportunities for all are increasing with the advancement of different technologies. However, it is important to note that accessibility is not always considered when developing tourism experiences, as there is a preconception that a majority of tourists are individuals without disabilities.

This thesis aimed to understand how opera houses, as important cultural spaces, communicate their accessibility features on their websites or social media platforms. Event tourism is an important part of tourism; hence, accessibility in the cultural sector is so important to ensure equal participation for all.

Grounded in the Social Model of Disability, Universal Design, and Framing Theory, the research explored the linguistic choices, tone, visuals, and the framing of their accessibility-related information. The main research question is: How do opera houses communicate accessibility features on different digital platforms? To help answer this question, the study has two secondary questions: (1) What language choices and tone are used in discussing accessibility, and how might they influence perceptions of inclusivity and accessibility? (2) What differences, if any, exist between website and social media accessibility communications? The study used a qualitative approach, using content and framing analysis to analyse these communications. The data in this study consisted of textual data, such as descriptions of accessible services, and visual data, such as images or videos showcasing any accessibility-related concepts.

The findings did reveal rather notable differences in the quality and quantity of communication across institutions and platforms, highlighting gaps in how cultural institutions communicate accessibility. The most notable difference was the quantity of information provided between social media sites and websites, with the latter proving to have a much more abundant offering of content. There were also significant differences across institutions, with some pages offering very slim pieces of information about their accessibility offerings and others having extra pages and hyperlinks all related to their commitment to accessibility. Linguistically speaking, there were some discrepancies, and in some places, the language used was not up to par with inclusive guidelines