A SOLACE Snapshot of the Accessibility Professionals Network Conference 2026
What does a high caliber example of a highly comfortable conference environment look, feel, and sound like?
Last week I attended the APN 2026 conference here in Toronto. The conference is hosted by Rick Hansen Foundation, whom are famous in Canada for their Rick Hansen Foundation Accessibility Certification (RHFAC).
For my SOLACE Model, I have developed a similar kind of ‘audit’ of a space. I ultimately call mine a SPACE Report, which stands for Sensory Profile and Comfort Evaluation, which is fitting because it is a method of measuring sensory factors in indoor space where humans live, work, interact, and rest.
The following is an unofficial sampling of some of the things I look at, measure, and assess as part of this process. The ‘grades’ that I give here are not the same as what I give in official audits, but they are a way to convey the idea.
The Conference
The conference was held at the Metro Toronto Convention center, which was originally constructed in the 1980s. That’s on the newer side for Toronto, and allowed for more considerations to be made in terms of accessibility.
I took various measurements while there, as there were at least a couple hundred people in attendance. Below is a photo that I took between sessions, so it’s not as full at this moment as it was at times.
I can say that as someone with several sensory struggles, this conference was really comfortable for a variety of reasons, which also gets to the heart of why I developed the SOLACE Model.
Allow me to break down some of what I observed and measured.
Sound
For important initial context, the threshold for hearing damage is 85 db (based on NIOSH 8-hour exposure limits).
Above 85 db, sustained exposure causes hearing damage over time, and the more above that number, the faster the damage happens.
When I have taken volume measurements in public spaces (mostly events, but sometimes even just retail stores), I have found the volume to be 70-75 db at base level, with peaks reaching 85-90 db. And that is often in ‘calm’ environments where there is NOT a hundred or more people speaking at once.
70 db is rated as ‘busy restaurant’, but I find this volume is very ‘common’ throughout various indoor spaces in Toronto (and likely, many other cities). It leaves very little ‘head room’ for ‘additive’ ambient noise.
My recommendation would be to get the db level of ‘typical base volume’ in these ‘calm environments’ down to 60 db. That gives more safety buffer.
I checked the volume at the conference multiple times during panels, during breaks, and between the two days. The panels were consistently 50-55 db (and I was sitting usually no more than 15-20 feet from the speakers).
The frequency spectrum during the panels was also comfortably ‘peaking’ between 80-1,500 Hz of frequency, which is very ideal, since that is essentially the human hearing ‘goldilocks zone’. 800 to 1,500 Hz is the range where the human voice carries the most 'meaning' and clarity, so staying within it reduces the mental effort required to understand speech.
During breaks when music was playing, the volume measurements were showing an overall average of 60-65 dbs, which is a healthy 20 db lower than what I’m used to at such events. It’s so nice to go to an event and NOT feel the need for my custom molded silicone extra strength high fidelity ‘musician’s earplugs’.
Over the course of a full day, I was much less tired than usual by home time.
One the first day, the music was also more relaxed and comfortable, though on the second day during lunch, they were playing a very bass heavy track that did drive me to put on my noise cancelling headphones. I tried to move further away from the speaker but it was lunch so most of the tables were full. I decided not to ask someone to move or make a spot for me.
Compared to the panel periods, the breaks in between had music but the frequency spectrum was still only peaking between 65 - 3,000 Hz. Again, quite comfortable compared to what I am used to. Not deep into the bass (except Day 2 lunch time), and not an overload of high end (which can be deceptively fatiguing).
In terms of the sound controlling factors of the physical environment, I noticed several things.
While the room was effectively a giant rectangle, there were lots of grooves and ridges and angles in both the walls and the ceiling to break up sound wave reflections.
There was also a carpeted floor, and the fabric draped on the tables was just thick and woven enough to contribute a small amount to sound dampening as well. This gave the room a very natural ambience without being overly reverby.
The two ‘bad extremes’ are a dead/dry room (no reverb) and a ‘wet’ room (too much reverb). This was very nicely in the middle.
It was not at all difficult to have conversations with people around you, and there was enough spacing between tables that you didn’t have to tune out as many conversations from other tables.
And despite the main conference area (in my opinion) being very comfortable, there was also a ‘quiet room’ provided for those who wanted or needed it. I never felt the need, nor was I itching to be done and get out of the conference itself. That is a huge deal for me.
Unofficial Score
Overall I have to give the sound environment at the conference a very solid A.
It would be an A+ if not for the bass-heavy music during day 2 lunch break. It was the kind of bass that when I’m tired, it feels like being punched gently in the head with ease pulse/thump.
Olfactory
There was clearly ventilation and airflow present. Using my trusty Aranet 4, the CO2 rating never crept above 700. For context, completely ‘clean’ and ‘fresh’ outdoor air would be 430 ppm (as of Apr 4th, 2026).
1,000 ppm is the broadly accepted point above which the air is becoming ‘stale’, however ASHRAE (the body that sets ventilation standards) often looks for CO2 levels to be no more than 800 ppm to ensure adequate outdoor air ventilation. So less than 700 ppm is still very solid.
I did also notice that the temperature and relative humidity were very consistent.
Of course, CO2 is not the only factor in terms of air quality.
I did not personally detect perfumes or added fragrances when I lowered my N95 mask to check a few times’. I was wearing an N95 for the vast majority of the first day, removing it only to eat or take a couple of pictures at times. N95s are designed for particulates, not vapors, so they offer minimal protection against strong scents, but I have found they can help reduce the distraction of minor scents vs no mask at all.
There were only a few other people at the conference wearing masks, which is pretty common at events these days. That said, I will remind readers that the pandemic is not ‘over’. Lockdowns are no longer happening, but Covid-19 is still in wide circulation and instances of long covid and post-viral conditions continue to accumulate. For this reason, it is still well worth wearing a properly fitted N95, especially in environments that do not have the professional grade ventilation that Metro Toronto Convention Centre has.
Lunches were provided entirely in sealed containers and food items were individually wrapped or in plastic containers. I can’t speak to how environmentally friendly the packaging itself was (in terms of being compostable vs just recyclable). The utensils provided did appear to be biodegradable, but I admit I am not an expert in that realm.
I did measure some other air quality factors and the CO2 measurement was the ‘highest’ measured factor of the bunch.
Unofficial Score
Overall I have to give the olfactory environment at the conference an A as well.
Air quality metrics were all very solid, there was little to no ‘added fragrances’ that I could detect (and I am more sensitive than the average person), the food was not highly aromatic, and the tables were seated such to help reduce how much direct ‘breath sharing’ would occur.
Lighting
I took light brightness and colour temperature measurements throughout the conference, under different lights, and even compared to natural light from outside.
[Lux measures the quantity of light (brightness), Kelvin measures the quality (warmth vs. coolness)].
At the tables themselves, during panels the light was consistently a dimmed ‘mood lighting’. Plenty bright enough to be able to see what needed to be seen at your table, and illuminate the room for easily navigating around tables, but dim enough that I did not feel a need for sunglasses or blue light blocking glasses.
As you can see by the above picture, the colour temperature (which was also very consistent) was around 3000. Sometimes up to 3100 or 3200.
For context see the below image which shows that 3000 is rated as ‘warm white’ and lives at the lower end of the ‘living space lighting’ category.
During the breaks between panels, and during lunch, the colour temperature remained steady (comfortable), and the Lux (brightness) increased but still within comfortable range.
For a ‘living room’, the ideal lux range is 75 to 300. During panels the lux measured at 80 and during breaks it measured 250.
Within the conference space, there were screens mounted on the walls that either displayed ASL interpreters, interactive audience questions (such as in the image above), or slides from a presentation from a speaker.
Some of these screens were LED/LCD screens, which were emitting strong blue light, but they were elevated high off the ground, and positioned along the back wall, so there was a solid distance between the seating and the screens. This helped to reduce eye strain and blue light overstimulation, despite their presence. If these screens were at eye level, and within say 10 feet of the audience, they would cause more issues.
The screen in the image above was a projector shining onto a white screen, so the blue light involved there does not have quite the same impact as looking directly at light emitting diodes on a screen inches (or feet) away from your face.
Outside of the conference room, there was an LCD screen mounted on the wall:
This screen did emit a fair bit of blue light, but was not a screen that anyone would need to stand close to and stare at for extended periods.
I took a measurement of it and here is what I found:
The colour temperature ranged from approx 5800K to 6000K.
If you review the Kelvin chart earlier in this section, you will see that that falls within the ‘commercial / industrial’ range of colour temperature (for indoors). Not the most ‘comfortable’, but again, you’re not meant to stand there and stare at it.
In the main lobby of Metro Toronto Convention Centre, the ‘ceiling’ is a partial skylight. The front doors face north, meaning that the sun is south of (behind) the building, but lots of natural light can still enter through the skylight. The makes the lobby area very well and naturally lit during the day. Day 1 of the conference was a sunny day. Day 2 was more rainy and dreary.
Unofficial Score
Overall I have to give the lighting environment at the conference an A.
Within the conference room itself, brightness and colour temperature were both kept consistently in the human comfort ‘sweet spot’. The visual environment was not overly ‘busy’.
While most of the decor was black/white/grey, the carpeting featured earthtones (red, orange, yellow, burgundy, pink) which contributed to the warm and hospitable vibe of the space.
Overhead lights were soft and diffused, though I did note a couple of panelists commented about the spotlights that were blinding them while on stage (they could not see the audience). But that only affected people while on the stage, not anyone in the audience.
Climate
As I noted, the temperature and relative humidity remained very consistent during the first day. During the second day I noticed the humidity seemed to increase somewhat while the temperature actually went down about a degree.
There was clearly proper ventilation present, but it also seemed to be well diffused, as there were not obvious drafts that I detected.
There was only one spot where I felt a distinctive ‘jet stream’ of cooler air flow, but it was only from reaching my arm up above my head fully and moving an open palm through the air. I could not visually determine the source easily. I did see vents in the ceiling, but it didn’t seem to be coming from them.
I was not able to measure the CADR (Clean Air Delivery Rate) concretely (that’s a bit more involved of a process), but as I noted, the CO2 (and other air quality metrics), as well as the temperature and humidity were very stable. Once again, I also did not detect any scent buildup during the conference so I strongly suspect that the cycling of clean, climate controlled air was very adequate.
It would have been interesting to see how the lobby would be affected on a really hot and humid day, as on days like those, people entering and exiting the space can allow enough external air in to disrupt the internal homeostasis.
Unofficial Score
Overall I have to give the climate environment at the conference an A+.
Given that this building was purpose designed as event space for things like conferences, it is very expected that factors are well controlled and within natural human comfort parameters.
Ergonomics / Comfort
I was pleased with the seating option that was available at the conference. The chairs were sturdy, the recline angle of the backs of the chairs felt good, and the padding was solidly thick without being rigid.
Given that people were sitting on these chairs for the better part of an entire day, without moving much, I felt they struck a good balance of being supportive and comfortable, without cutting off much blood flow to the legs, and my posterior did not go numb after only a couple of hours like I’m used to.
The other ergonomic ‘win’ here was the fact that the entire conference took place in the same room, with a very short distance to the food during breaks (and a photo booth).
The bathrooms were a little further away (around a corner and down a longish hall), and those washrooms that all the fully ambulatory people were going to were up a short stairwell (less than 10 steps). I assume an AODA-compliant washroom was available elsewhere, but I did not specifically ask.
I had been concerned that I would be very physically tired after the whole day as usually at conferences, the different sessions take place in different rooms, sometimes not super close to each other, so moving between sessions involves more walking (and I am usually carrying a backpack, maybe a laptop so that is additional physical load). That and/or the washrooms or food area might be a bit of a walk away as well.
I’m sure this venue was chosen due to the ability to host a large number of people in a comfortable space with minimal physical travel required for basics like food or washroom breaks, and people were able to just stay in their seats and rest for the most part.
This meant minimal distractions and minimal exertion. I was still tired when I departed at lunch on the second day, but it could have been much worse. It will be interesting to contrast this against my experience at the upcoming CALS conference in Ottawa.
Unofficial Score
Overall I have to give the ergonomic environment at the conference an A.
A minor deduction for the washrooms being a longer walk, and up a short flight of stairs. It’s a very minor issue, and otherwise the space was really ideal. But this is what Rick Hansen is famous for - helping making built environments more physically accessible and usable. So I would have been more surprised if this were not the case.
Accumulation
A is the awkward letter in the middle of SOLACE that actually belongs at the end.
Because accumulation is the sum of all the parts. But if we recap:
Sound: A
Olfactory: A
Lighting: A
Climate: A+
Ergonomics: A
This conference could definitely be called among the ‘pinnacle examples’ of a well-designed, well-considered, comfortable space. Both physically, and sensory wise.
I kept thinking while I was there, a lot of things that commonly cause sensory discomfort for me (and for others I’ve spoken to) were simply NOT factors in this space.
Sound is the primary self-reported driver of discomfort for the vast majority of people who’ve completed my sensory survey. The sound environment was much better than I am used to.
The only ‘complaints’ I can raise with this space are all very minor. I could easily identify what (and how) they were getting right.
And the irony of this is that we are much more likely to notice when things go wrong, so I actually had to really look around and consider - what things might I be missing because they’re so well-done that they are ‘fading into the background’ so to speak. I was trying not to miss documenting things because they weren’t ‘standing out’ like I’m so used to.
Again, this is part of the point of the ‘accumulation’ factor of sensory accessibility. The fact that there were so few sensory ‘distractions’ across my senses, meant reduced ‘active filtering’, which left me with a lot more energy at the end of the day.
And remember, while I was there for a conference, I was also technically ‘working’ (not officially, but I was taking samples and observing and making notes). So between travel to the venue, a full day of panels and being in a room with hundreds of people, networking with new people, and going out of my way to take measurements, observe, and document - I was not completely depleted at the end of the day.
In comparison, most events or other conferences I go to, I will tend to feel depleted after 2-3 hours, and in those instances I am not ‘working’ (ie collecting sensory samples).
This conference now serves as a ‘high water mark’ for a sensory accessible and sustainable conference. I don’t know that I will be able to take as many measurements at the CALS conference in Ottawa, but I will certainly be paying attention.
If you would like to book me to come and do a focused and complete sensory audit of your event space, office, store, or restaurant - please reach out to info@neuromixconsulting.com.
To close out, I will share this interview that I hosted with one of the adjudicators of the RHFAC - Uli Egger, whom I got to meet at the conference as well.
Thank you to Rick Hansen Foundation for a great conference and a great sensory experience! I look forward to next year and if all goes well - you’ll get to hear me speak about these things from the stage.
Lacey Artemis (she/they) aka The Sensory Nerd is a neurodivergent speaker, consultant, and researcher focused on systems-level sensory inclusion and design. She is the founder of Neuromix Consulting, where her applied research and advisory work supports more comfortable, sensory-accessible public spaces.
Lacey is Autistic and has sensory processing issues that affect her in a variety of ways.
Sensory Surveys • Whitepaper • SOLACE Model • LinkedIn • YouTube • IG • FB • BSKY