After surveying existing airport accessibility brands and digital applications, I wanted to move beyond collecting screenshots and begin examining specific graphic-design decisions. My developing project explores how confirmed journey information, environmental options and chosen assistance could be communicated together without making a personal app compulsory. I selected five contrasting examples because each addresses part of that question rather than simply looking visually similar to the identity I might eventually develop.
The five are GoodMaps (indoor orientation), MagnusCards at Toronto Pearson (staged and sensory preparation), the Heathrow app (operational flight updates), Brain in Hand (personal strategies and chosen support) and the Catania Airport digital ecosystem by The Wave (a unified interface system). Four are documented operating app or service offerings; Catania is also documented through the design studio's 2025 case study. I am analysing published images of the interfaces, not recording first-hand use. The annotations below distinguish what is actually visible in each image, my interpretation and what would require further testing.
GoodMaps indoor navigation interface showing a route map and an instruction panel
Visible interface evidence. This illustration, published by Jefferson Community and Technical College as an example of GoodMaps navigation, shows a mobile screen containing a route line, mapped landmarks and a prominent directional instruction: “Continue 12 feet”, followed by a turn. A lower panel shows remaining distance, an estimated arrival and a clear “End Route” action. It is a venue navigation example, not a screenshot of a GoodMaps gate-change interaction at an airport. The provider also documents turn-by-turn audio, visual and haptic guidance and shared data across web, app and venue interfaces: GoodMaps platform.
My design interpretation. The separation between the immediate instruction and the broader route is relevant to my research into clarity and retained choice. A traveller could need the next action urgently without wanting to lose the full journey context. The visible “End Route” control also reminds me that an interface must communicate how to stop optional guidance, although it does not establish what appears after that action.
Limitation and question for testing. The image cannot show whether this hierarchy works for autistic adults, whether the route is kept accurate after an airport disruption, or how human assistance could be requested. I would test whether people notice a changed instruction, recover the full overview and understand when they are following optional guidance rather than an airport-required procedure.
Archival MagnusCards screens for Toronto Pearson showing sensory preparation cards
Visible interface evidence. This archival image from a 2017 report shows Pearson-related MagnusCards on phone mock-ups. The visible card titled “What Sights, Sounds, & Smells to Expect at an Airport” combines a photographic example, explanatory text, a “Play Audio” action and clear previous/next card controls with a numbered position in the deck. Another partially shown card concerns asking questions or receiving help. This is not evidence that the current 2026 interface is visually identical. Image source: PAX — Pearson and MagnusCards. Continued service provision is documented by Toronto Pearson's MagnusCards page and a 2025 update by Magnusmode.
My design interpretation. The image illustrates a deliberate choice to present one prepared piece of content at a time, while allowing the traveller to move between steps or hear the content. This could be a useful model for communicating procedures and explaining environmental expectations. It also raises a possible tension: an isolated card might make one action clearer but should not prevent someone from seeing where that action fits in the journey.
Limitation and question for testing. The screenshot relates to pre-authored preparation, not a newly verified change in flight information. I cannot infer that these controls reduce anxiety or are preferred by my target population. I would compare a staged “what to do now” card with a single page that shows the instruction alongside a retrievable overview, and observe which supports comprehension without hiding relevant information.
Heathrow promotional example of a gate-open mobile notification
Visible interface evidence. Heathrow's own promotional image shows a mobile lock-screen notification bearing the Heathrow icon: “Gate open”, followed by an instruction to go to gate A3 for an illustrative flight number. The notification is highly recognisable and communicates a next action without requiring the app to be open. This is a promotional example, not evidence that a specific passenger received a verified live gate change. Image/source: Heathrow — Travel tips. Heathrow describes live gate information, boarding updates and door-to-gate guidance in its official app information.
My design interpretation. A high-priority alert is a strong precedent for my gate-change scenario. The compact wording answers an immediate practical question. However, the lock-screen view alone does not show the information source, the full route, accessible environmental alternatives or a staff-help entry point. This is a limitation of the screenshot I can inspect, not a claim that the Heathrow app lacks those functions.
Limitation and question for testing. I cannot assess how the alert behaves when information is tentative, contradicted or updated again, or how it interacts with notification preferences. My prototype should make a distinction between confirmed, unconfirmed and superseded information, with clear actions and a truthful fallback where operational confirmation is unavailable. I would test comprehension rather than presume that a concise alert always provides enough context.
Brain in Hand solutions library screenshot showing multiple user-selectable solution packs