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.

1. GoodMaps: keeping a route and next action visible

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.

2. MagnusCards: preparing a step at a time

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.

3. Heathrow: a confirmed-type alert and its missing context

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.

4. Brain in Hand: personalised support is selectable

Visible interface evidence. A screenshot published within Brain in Hand's own 2026 guidance shows a “Solutions” area with a search field, category filters and several named solution packs, including “Feeling anxious”, “Feeling overwhelmed” and “On public transport”. Each entry has a title and a count, and a bottom bar allows movement between sections. Original screenshot/source: Brain in Hand — Managing community anxiety. The provider describes a broader service combining planning, personalised strategies and human support: Brain in Hand — How it works.

My design interpretation. This screen is useful because it presents several possible forms of help for the user to explore, rather than assuming that an inferred physiological signal can automatically diagnose a state. Search and filters may help organise a large library, but also require the user to decide how their present need should be described. My project could explore descriptive options such as “Show next step”, “View environment” and “Request staff help” without requiring a traveller to select an emotion label.

Limitation and question for testing. The image alone does not reveal how long a support request takes, what happens when a pack is opened, or whether someone can find the right action under time pressure. This is also not an airport-specific information service, so its features do not establish the practicality of live airport support. I would test whether users can identify relevant choices quickly and whether too many choices add work.

5. Catania Airport: a system rather than a stand-alone screen

Visible interface evidence. The Wave's case-study photograph shows a Catania Airport app home screen with a strong green header and separate cards for services, flight lookup and terminal waiting-time information. The interface groups several airport tasks on one page and presents them through a consistent component style. Image/source: The Wave — Catania Airport. The studio's Behance project describes Terminal, its shared design system across airport website, app and other SAC service platforms. This is a client/agency presentation, and the studio's accessibility and impact claims have not been independently evaluated for my project.

My design interpretation. This is the clearest reference for a graphic-design language that extends beyond one app. I am interested in the repetition of information structures and the potential for travellers to recognise an action consistently across touchpoints. At the same time, the visible home screen combines journey information with commercial services. This makes information prioritisation an important design decision rather than simply an aesthetic one.

Limitation and question for testing. The image does not show airport signage, a sensory route, a resolved staff-help flow or behaviour under conflicting data. I would compare what belongs on a general airport dashboard with what must be foregrounded when a traveller receives a time-sensitive update. A coherent brand is not necessarily equivalent to coherent assistance.

Comparing the five at the level of interface decisions

What I would carry forward and what I would avoid

The most convincing direction for my own graphic-design experiments would combine a recognisable current instruction (Heathrow), recoverable route context (GoodMaps), clearly staged detail where useful (MagnusCards), active rather than presumed support choice (Brain in Hand) and consistent component rules across screens and wider communication (Catania). This is a synthesis for prototyping, not a claim that merging their features would produce a successful intervention.

The next testable prototype should therefore be deliberately narrow: a verified gate change, a clearly expressed new instruction, a way back to the full journey, discoverable environmental detail and an optional human-help route. Importantly, dismissal of any support offer should not remove essential guidance. This would make the project more about the quality and continuity of communication than about introducing another branded app.