Exploring Accessibility at U-M Libraries: Lessons from the 2023 Library Campus Survey

Introduction

In 2023, the University of Michigan Library undertook its first comprehensive campus-wide survey of students and employees which generated more than 15,000 responses. This project set out to assess the library-related experiences and needs of a wide range of community members, including undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, staff, clinicians, and postdoctoral fellows. The survey featured branching questions tailored to respondents’ primary roles and included topics on demographics, library spaces, services, and collections. (Visit the 2023 Library Campus Survey Results website for more analysis.)

The central goal was to assess the needs of library users, evaluate the effectiveness of library services, and pinpoint areas for improvement. Since this was U-M’s first campus-wide survey focused on libraries and library services, the team had little direct precedent or local literature to guide their approach. They drew on survey questions from other universities’ comprehensive assessments, but worked carefully to adapt them for Michigan’s unique campus context.

Personally, my research focused on a deeper understanding of library accessibility for persons with disabilities —their experiences, challenges, and what stands in the way of inclusive access. My aim was (and is) to help identify where our libraries can be made more welcoming and accessible for everyone.

Why Accessibility Matters

So why focus on accessibility? Enhancing accessibility in our libraries isn't only a matter of fairness or legal compliance; it’s a source of broad-based innovation and benefit. Some of the most impactful everyday tools—electric toothbrushes, curb cuts, and audiobooks—were originally designed for specific disabilities, but now benefit a much wider population. The more accessible our library spaces and resources become, the more usable, welcoming, and valuable they are for all community members.

Process and Methodology

To undertake this study, I started by reviewing all documentation related to the campus survey, including the full question list and any prior analyses. The core of my research examined the experiences of 11,919 participants who responded to the question “Do you have a disability?” The answer options included:

No, I do not have a disability
Yes, I have a suspected disability
Yes, I have a temporary disability
Yes, I have a permanent disability
I prefer not to answer

For analysis, the three “Yes” groups were combined due to their very similar response patterns, and were then compared to those who answered “No” and those who chose not to answer. This combination made it easier to find overarching themes in the data.

After identifying high-level trends among these groups, I combined and simplified variables to clarify and illuminate patterns. For example, some measures—such as “Struggles with Wayfinding” or “Number of Barriers Encountered”—were condensed into binary options (yes/no) to make the findings easier to interpret.

To dig deeper into the data about feelings of welcome and belonging, I created a composite “Sense of Acceptance” score, combining responses to the following:

How welcomed do you feel in the library? (5-point scale)
How safe do you feel in the library or at the entrances? (5-point scale)
How respectful is the library of diversity? (4-point scale)
Do you feel like you belong when you are in the library? (5-point scale)

I used similar approaches to create “Ease of Finding Space” (combining five related variables) and “How Accessible Are Electronic Resources” (combining four variables related to digital access).

Quantitative analyses were carried out in SPSS, with visualizations created in Google Sheets for ease of customization. I focused on making the graphs easy to understand and to read with larger text, clear colors, and numbers where applicable.

Crucially, the survey also included several open-ended questions. I focused on one in particular: “If you experienced one or more accessibility barriers in the library, share more about that here.” An earlier categorization of these responses seemed overly detailed for our purposes, so I condensed the qualitative responses into a focused set of categories: Seating, Bathrooms, Navigation, Stairs/Ramps, Doors, Elevators/Escalators, Stacks/Shelves, Technology, and Temporary Issues. For each, I pulled representative examples and tallied the number of comments.

Findings

For those interested in further details, please see:

Survey Snapshot

Of the more than 15,000 responses, the breakdown on disability status was as follows:

9,892 people without disabilities
1,359 people with suspected, temporary, or permanent disabilities
668 people who preferred not to answer
3,199 people who skipped the question or left it blank

Key Patterns

To see graphs showing the patterns below, please refer to the marked slides in the Accessibility and Disability in the Library (slideshow).

Sense of Acceptance

Respondents with disabilities reported a lower sense of acceptance in the library, as measured by the composite score combining feelings of being welcomed, safety, respect for diversity, and belonging. Those with disabilities show lower feelings of acceptance on average when compared to those without disabilities (Slide 6).

Barriers Encountered

Respondents with disabilities reported encountering barriers at a rate nearly four times higher than those without disabilities:

21.3% of users with disabilities encountered at least one barrier
5.6% of users without disabilities encountered at least one barrier

Barriers were directly linked to lower reported feelings of acceptance (Slide 8).

Wayfinding and Navigation

Wayfinding remains a challenge across user groups, but especially for those with disabilities (37.1%), followed by those who preferred not to answer (31.8%), and those without disabilities (28.4%). Wayfinding includes moving through the libraries, finding specific places, and using signage.

Finding a Place to Work

Overall, many respondents struggled to find suitable spaces to work. Respondents with disabilities reported more challenges, frequently mentioning uncomfortable or inaccessible seating. While most people have some difficulties finding spaces to work, those with disabilities tend to have more difficulty (Slide 19).

Electronic vs. Physical Resource Accessibility

There was a noticeable gap in reported accessibility of electronic resources. Library users with disabilities rated digital materials as less accessible than their non-disabled peers (Slide 23). Comments referenced difficulties with screen-reader compatibility and issues with dyslexia- or color-blind-friendly fonts. However, perceptions of physical material accessibility were quite similar across groups (Slide 26).

Patterns in the Comments

The open-ended comments added crucial context and should be explored directly for greater understanding of the responses (see full spreadsheet of comments here).

Key themes from 431 comments included the following:

Wayfinding (135 comments):
- “Sometimes the internal and external ADA push buttons are not working - Signage and navigation for accessible pathways through spaces/buildings can be difficult to easily pinpoint or find.”
- “Some braille labels are incorrect or difficult to find/not there.”
Stairs & Ramps (51 comments), Doors (56), Elevators (27):
- Users expressed frustration with finding accessible routes and malfunctioning access hardware.
- “Access to automatic doors- not always in a good place compared to the actual door. They are often too far or not in a directional path to the door.”
Stacks & Shelves (40 comments):
- “Aisles in stacks are often very narrow and hard to maneuver through even with just a big backpack.”
Bathrooms (86 comments):
- Concerns included the condition of accessible stalls, lack of gender-neutral bathrooms, and stalls being too cramped.
- “I have trouble with stairs due to bad knees and many chairs are not comfortable due to my size. Most regular restroom stalls are too small to function comfortably in.”
Seating (108 comments):
- Respondents highlighted a need for more and better seating accommodations, including padded, adjustable, and accessible seating and desk arrangements.
- “For people with back issues, many of the chairs and couches need to have designated foot stools to take pressure off of the back”

Several comments helped explain patterns in the quantitative data. For example, the numbers showing struggle with printers by disabled users was clarified through comments highlighting issues with printer locations, height, and difficulty finding working printers.

Conclusions and Reflections

The data tells us a consistent story: two main areas need attention to improve library accessibility for persons with disabilities:

Navigation challenges: Lack of accessible doors, routes to elevators, and informative signage.
Physical comfort and bathroom access: Difficulty finding comfortable, accessible seating and concerns about accessible/gender-neutral bathrooms.

These barriers, among others, contribute to lower feelings of acceptance among library users with disabilities as shown both in the statistics and in users’ own words.

It’s also worth noting a limitation: the 2023 survey didn’t ask about what responses were connected to specific locations. While we know respondents' favorite libraries and how frequently they visited libraries in general, we have no way of knowing which responses are directly related to a specific building. This made it difficult to find location-specific issues or compare the accessibility of the campus libraries.

Next Steps

Looking ahead, I hope to continue investigating how accessible library spaces are and how these factors shape users’ experiences. Our team is developing a new campus survey, complemented by interviews, to explore questions such as:

What spaces do people use in the library, and why?
Are certain spaces being avoided? Why are these spaces less desirable or useful?
How do patterns of library space use differ based on a person’s disability status and other characteristics?

The goal is to better understand the connections between physical space, design features, and user identities or needs. This information can guide our improvement efforts by not only helping us make specific spaces more accessible and welcoming, but also by informing broader discussions about disability, access, and best practices at U-M Libraries and more.

If we can use this data to direct resources and inform change, the benefits will stretch beyond the libraries, creating a more equitable and innovative campus for everyone.