Wayfinding accessibility audit
A wayfinding accessibility audit shows not only where people get lost but why their model of the building stops matching the real space. We reconstruct the causal chain: what the visitor expected, what they saw, which hypothesis they formed, which decision they made and what came of it. The output is a map of gaps, a Navindex score and priorities for change.
Key facts
- What the client receives
- A map of orientation gaps with root causes, a Navindex score and a prioritised plan for change
- Method
- Walking the building along real visitor scenarios and reconstructing the causal chain behind every failure
- How it differs from an ordinary audit
- It records not only where someone stopped but the point where the root cause arose
- What it excludes
- Fabrication of carriers — that sits inside rollout, after the design stage
What the work includes
- A map of orientation gaps on the floor plans
- A causal chain for each gap: expectation → perception → hypothesis → decision → outcome
- Photo evidence from the visitor's point of view
- An analysis of routes across the key visit scenarios
- A Navindex score across ten criteria
- Priorities for change, split into quick fixes and systemic work
Which buildings this suits
- Wayfinding for clinics and medical centres
- Wayfinding for shopping and entertainment centres
- Wayfinding for business centres and office spaces
What a wayfinding accessibility audit shows
An ordinary audit answers the question «where did the person get lost». That is not enough: the place where someone stops almost never coincides with the place where the problem arose. People stop when their model of the building finally fails — but it began diverging from reality several decisions earlier.
So we reconstruct the whole chain. For every failure we record what the visitor expected to see, what they actually saw, which hypothesis about the structure they formed, which decision they made and where it led. The root cause is found in that chain, not at the point of stopping: in a name that did not match the booking, an entrance that looked like the main one, a map oriented against the direction of travel.
- False expectations — the environment confidently sends people the wrong way
- Information gaps — nothing to work with at a decision point
- Missing confirmation — the decision was right, but the environment stays silent and people turn back to check
- Terminology conflicts — the same place named differently in the booking, by staff and on the door
- The way back — the most common blind spot: orientation exists inbound and not outbound
- Visual noise — functional information drowning in notices and advertising
How the audit runs
The work splits into preparation, fieldwork and the report. In preparation we gather floor plans, the load schedule, a list of typical scenarios and — always — the texts the building already speaks to visitors with: booking messages, the website page, the labels on doors, call-centre scripts. A significant share of gaps arises precisely where those texts meet.
Fieldwork happens on site during opening hours: that is the only way to see queues, temporary notices and how staff behave. We walk the routes, take photo evidence from the visitor's vantage points, and observe behaviour: stops, backtracking, wrong turns, requests to staff. We separately record what people ask at reception — a direct indicator of gaps.
In the report every gap is tied to a point on the plan, to a type of visitor and to a root cause. Recommendations are split into what can be fixed in a week by the building itself and what needs strategy and design.
When an audit is enough and when you need a strategy
If the building is small and the gaps are isolated — a corrected phrase, a landmark added at a junction, an outdated sign taken off a door — the audit is enough and the building can take it from there.
If the gaps repeat across the whole building, if there are several wings, or if wayfinding has accumulated in layers over years, isolated fixes do not help: every new message adds to the clutter instead of removing it. In that case the audit becomes the brief for an orientation strategy.
Frequently asked questions
How long does a wayfinding accessibility audit take?
It depends on the floor area and the number of scenarios. Fieldwork in a single building usually takes one or two days; preparing the report takes from a few days to two weeks for complex multi-wing sites. We give an exact timescale once we have seen the plans and the list of routes.
Does the building have to close during the audit?
No — and closing it is precisely what you should not do. The audit runs during opening hours because a significant share of gaps is visible only under real load: queues block signs, temporary notices cover the maps, staff redirect people by hand.
What if we do not have floor plans?
We measure on site and reconstruct the layout to the level of detail a spatial model needs. That lengthens the fieldwork stage, so having current plans noticeably speeds the work up.
Can the audit be done remotely?
A full audit requires being on site: visitor behaviour and the competition for attention cannot be seen remotely. We do run remote reviews from your photographs, plans and texts — cheaper and faster, and good at finding terminology conflicts and obvious gaps — but it does not replace fieldwork.
We will design the wayfinding for your building
Send us the floor plans and a short description of the building — we will come back with an estimate of scope and timescales. You can start with the audit: it forms the first stage of the project, and is billed separately if you decide to take it from there yourself.