Skip to content
EventConsultant.com.my

Event accessibility questions builder

Some attendees have asked for support and the team needs to know what to ask the venue and who will follow it up.

Discuss this on WhatsAppOpens WhatsApp with a draft you can edit before sending. Nothing is sent automatically.

…

The short answer

The builder turns the supports you know are needed into a question pack for the venue and suppliers, adds questions for the languages you need to support, and matches each area to a responsible role. An area with a stated need and no role is shown as having none.

It works with supports and totals, never with people or conditions. It does not rate, pass or certify the accessibility of any venue or event: the venue and suppliers give the answers, and you record them.

What to enter

  • Known participation needs, written as the support required: step-free access, live captions, a quiet room, a large-print programme. Choose the area each belongs to and, if you know it, how many people have asked in total.
  • Language support the programme or materials need: the language and whether it is interpretation, captions or translated materials.
  • Contact roles, not names, and the area each role coordinates. One role can cover all areas.

Describe the support, not the person

Write what is needed, never why. A need written as a diagnosis or a medical condition is not used by the tool and is listed so you can rewrite it as the support required, for example "quiet room" instead of a description of a person.

Counts are totals only. A blank count is unknown, not zero, and there is no field for a name. This keeps the pack away from profiling individual attendees.

The question pack

Each support produces questions about what the venue or supplier provides, where it is written down, how you will check it and who the named contact is on the day. Some areas add one more question, such as which routes are involved or who provides interpretation.

A short set of general questions covers how requests are collected without asking for a diagnosis, who sees individual requests and how long they are kept, and who handles support requests during the event. A column is left for the answer you receive.

Who coordinates what

Each area that has a stated need is matched to the roles you named for it. If none covers the area, the table says no role is assigned, so the gap is visible before the event rather than during it.

For the intake itself and the follow-up, see the accessibility requirements intake and the accessibility action tracker.

Limits

The pack is questions and responsibilities. A venue's answer is a statement to check, not a finding. For a venue inspection of access, see the venue accessibility inspection, and for stage and speaker areas the accessible stage questions.

Worked example · Fictional example

A fictional seminar

Fictional supports and roles, to show how the pack is built.

A fictional seminar lists step-free access (3 people have asked), live captions (count unknown), a quiet room (2) and a large-print programme (1). It also lists one entry written as a person's condition. Two roles are named: a venue liaison for physical access and a registration lead for information formats.

The condition-style entry is set aside to be rewritten as a support. The pack has questions for the four supports and two languages, and shows that communication and sensory support have no responsible role.

AreaSupport listedResponsible role
Physical accessStep-free access to all session roomsVenue liaison
Communication and languageLive captions in the plenaryNO ROLE ASSIGNED
Sensory environmentA quiet room during breaksNO ROLE ASSIGNED
Information formatsLarge-print programmeRegistration lead

Use this yourself

Accessibility question pack

Use one row per support. Put each question to the venue or supplier and record the answer you receive, in writing where possible.

Support neededQuestion for the venue or supplierNamed contact and answer received
What do you provide for this, and where is it described in writing?
How will it be checked on the site visit, and who is the named contact on the day?
Which routes, spaces or formats does it involve, and are any restricted during our event?
Collecting requestsHow will registrants say what support they need without being asked for a diagnosis?
On the dayWho handles support requests during the event and how will attendees reach them?

Handle it in-house, or bring in help?

Your team can usually handle this when

  • A small programme with a few known supports and one person who can follow them up with the venue.
  • The venue has a named contact who answers in writing.

Outside planning help earns its fee when

  • Requests arrive in different forms and at different times, and several suppliers must each confirm their part.
  • The programme changes after supports have been agreed and someone must keep every party aligned.
  • Responsibility for each area is unclear and no one is tracking answers against the event timeline.

Need accessibility follow-up coordinated?

An outsourced conference project lead can put the question pack to the venue and suppliers, chase written answers and keep the list of who is responsible for each area up to date as the programme changes. The judgement on what is adequate stays with you and the specialists you appoint.

Coordinate accessibility follow-upOpens WhatsApp with a draft you can edit before sending. Nothing is sent automatically.Conference project lead

Questions organisers ask

Does the tool say whether my event is accessible?

No. It produces questions and a list of responsibilities. It does not rate, pass or certify any venue, supplier or event.

Why is a need written as a condition set aside?

The pack asks about the support required, not about a person's condition. Rewrite the entry as the support, such as a quiet room or captions.

Can I enter the names of attendees who asked for support?

No. The tool takes supports and totals only. Keep individual requests with the smallest group that needs them.

Related resources

Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.