COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "Towards an accessible information society" Status and challenges of e-accessibility in Europe - Montesquieu Instituut

 

COUNCIL OFBrussels, 4 December 2008

THE EUROPEAN UNION

16830/08 ADD 2

TELECOM 222 SOC 768 COMPET 555 RECH 419

COVER NOTE

from:

Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 2 December 2008

to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "Towards an accessible information society" Status and challenges of e-accessibility in Europe

Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2008) 2916.

 

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 1.12.2008 SEC(2008) 2916

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying document to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

"Towards an accessible information society"

Status and challenges of e-accessibility in Europe

{COM(2008) 804 final}

{SEC(2008) 2915}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• 1. 

  Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3

1.1. E-accessibility - who is concerned?........................................................................ 3

1.2. EU-level policy instruments...................................................................................... 4

• 2. 

  E-accessibility............................................................................................................. 6

2.1. E-accessibility state of play ...................................................................................... 6

2.1.1. Provision of accessible ICTs the e-accessibility deficit ............................ 6

2.1.2. Non legislative EU level activities on e-accessibility .................................... 7

2.1.3. Legislative approaches.......................................................................................... 9

2.2. Further actions towards a coherent and effective approach for e-accessibility

.................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.1. Increasing coherence and timely action by cooperation and

coordination............................................................................................................ 13

2.2.2. Supporting innovation and deployment.......................................................... 14

2.2.3. Facilitating standardisation activities.............................................................. 15

2.2.4. Legislation ............................................................................................................... 15

• 3. 

  Web accessibility ..................................................................................................... 16

3.1.1. Relevance and state of play................................................................................ 16

3.2. Web accessibility activities ..................................................................................... 18

3.2.1. Non legislative activities supporting web accessibility.............................. 18

3.2.2. Legislative approaches........................................................................................ 20

3.3. Further web accessibility actions........................................................................... 21

3.3.1. Rationale for further action on web accessibility......................................... 21

• 1. 

  INTRODUCTION

This staff working paper provides background information on the 2008 Communication "Towards an Accessible Information Society". It deals with both e-accessibility in general and web accessibility as a specific priority. This staff working paper is based upon two study reports prepared for the Commission in 2008 on e-accessibility and web accessibility respectively (both with an extensive analysis of legislation in Member States, USA, and some other third countries, and at EU level), the public consultation held from July -- September 2008, consultation workshops, the impact assessment of the 2007 e-Inclusion Communication, the `MEAC' study

1, and a range of other documents quoted in the notes.

The paper first presents general information on e-accessibility (and web accessibility), namely who is concerned and which EU-level policy instruments are at our disposal. Section 2 of the paper deals with e-accessibility in general, presenting both non-legislative and legislative activities, and subsequently providing more background information for the action proposed in the Communication to achieve a more coherent and effective approach to improving e- accessibility.

Section 3 then deals in more detail with web accessibility. It presents the current state of play addressing both non-legislative and legislative activities, and then provides more background information on initiatives that are proposed in the Communication to accelerate web accessibility.

1.1. E-accessibility -- who is concerned?

E-accessibility means overcoming the technical barriers and difficulties that people with disabilities and others like elderly people experience when trying to participate on equal terms in the information society.

2 It potentially concerns any type of information and

communication technology (ICT) used by citizens. Full e-accessibility is a huge challenge, as there is a wide range of disabilities and ICTs are constantly and rapidly evolving.

E-accessibility is of great importance for many citizens:

The core group of disabled persons for whom e-accessibility is relevant comprises some 84 million persons in Europe, of which 50 million in the age range 15-64 and 34 million in the age range 65 and above.

5

As there is a wide variety of impairments, needs are very diverse and likewise a great variety of solutions is needed. As shown in Figure 1 there are many barriers to ICT and many ICT- enabled products and services that may pose accessibility challenges to persons with disabilities, as well as many potential solutions.

Visual Visual impairmentsimpairmentsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutions

Hearing impairmentsHearing impairments

Design mainstream ICT products / services so that the visual presentation can be adjusted by the users (e.g. displays with adjustable font size, contrast, use of colours)Design mainstream ICT products / services so that the visual presentation can be adjusted by the users (e.g. displays with adjustable font size, contrast, use of colours)Ensure that audio outputs are adjustable in sound volume & quality Ensure that audio outputs are adjustable in sound volume & quality

Provide audio & other output modes as alternative Provide audio & other output modes as alternative

BarriersBarriersBarriersBarriers(e.g. vibrating) to audio signals (e.g. vibrating) to audio signals

Provide speech, audio and other output modes as alternative to visual displays & status indicators on ICT productsProvide speech, audio and other output modes as alternative to visual displays & status indicators on ICT productsBarriersBarriersBarriersBarriers

Cannot read visual Cannot read visual Provide text captions enabling deaf peopleProvide text captions enabling deaf people

displaysdisplaysCannot hear Cannot hear

voice on telephonevoice on telephoneto follow the audio component of to follow the audio component of

Cannot see visual Cannot see visual TV broadcasts / videos TV broadcasts / videos

Provide second audio channel / track to narrate the visual component ofTV broadcasts / videosProvide second audio channel / track to narrate the visual component ofTV broadcasts / videos

system status signalssystem status signalsCannot hear audio Cannot hear audio

status signalsstatus signalsProvide text telephones & operator relayProvide text telephones & operator relay

Cannot seeCannot seeservices enabling text phone users to

visual web visual web Mobile phonesMobile phonesservices enabling text phone users to

communicate with voice phone users

Design ICT products/services so that they are compatible with assistive technologies for blind users such as text-to-speech softwareDesign ICT products/services so that they are compatible with assistive technologies for blind users such as text-to-speech softwarecontentcontentinterfere withinterfere withcommunicate with voice phone users

hearing aidshearing aids

Cannot watchCannot watchDesign mobile phones to minimise Design mobile phones to minimise

TV broad- castsTV broad- castsCannot hear Cannot hear interferences with hearing aids interferences with hearing aids

TV audioTV audio

Online content Online content Public Public

too difficult totoo difficult toterminals terminals Design public telephones, ticket Design public telephones, ticket

Design online services and otherICT-based products so that they are understandable and usable by people with cognitive impartment (e.g. simple/consistent menu structure,Design online services and otherICT-based products so that they are understandable and usable by people with cognitive impartment (e.g. simple/consistent menu structure,understand understand unreachable unreachable machines, information kiosks,machines, information kiosks,

(e.g. complex(e.g. complexin wheelchairin wheelchaircash dispensers so that they are cash dispensers so that they are

language)language)accessible to wheel chair driversaccessible to wheel chair drivers

Interface / menu Interface / menu Interfaces Interfaces

too complex too complex requiring too fine manipulation requiring too fine manipulation

Design key pats, touch screensDesign key pats, touch screens

consistent use of icons , easy language) consistent use of icons , easy language) to useto use

Cannot talk to voice-based Cannot talk to voice-based skillsskillsand other interfaces to cater for people and other interfaces to cater for people

services & systems such as services & systems such as with dexterity problems (e.g. less sensitive, with dexterity problems (e.g. less sensitive,

Design online services and other ICT-based products to accommodate age related changes in information processing capabilities (e.g. lower reaction speed, less fine motor skills, reduced memory capacity)Design online services and other ICT-based products to accommodate age related changes in information processing capabilities (e.g. lower reaction speed, less fine motor skills, reduced memory capacity)call centres & interactive call centres & interactive better spaced, larger buttons)better spaced, larger buttons)

response services response services

Provide alternative to speech input in Provide alternative to speech input in Design ICT products/services so thatDesign ICT products/services so that

interactive voice systemsinteractive voice systemsthey are compatible with assistive they are compatible with assistive

technologies for people with dexterity technologies for people with dexterity

impairments (e.g. alternative input devices)impairments (e.g. alternative input devices)

Provide text telephones & operator relayProvide text telephones & operator relay

services enabling text phone users to communicate with services enabling text phone users to communicate with

voice phone usersvoice phone users

Physical &Physical &

Cognitive impairmentsCognitive impairmentsSpeech impairmentsSpeech impairmentsmobility impairmentsmobility impairments

At the same time, references to e-accessibility started to appear in EU legislation related to the ICT sector, notably in the telecommunication Directives (currently called `electronic communications' Directives), and the radio & telecommunication terminal equipment directive (R&TTE Directive), as explained in section 2. Non-ICT sectoral legislation also incorporated explicit and implicit references to persons with disabilities and to e-accessibility, notably in the field of copyright, public procurement and structural funds regulations. General EU legislation on equal rights explicitly covers disability and implicitly rights of disabled people to use ICT, namely the Employment Equality Directive and most recently the proposal for a Council Directive on "implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation". Details on this EU legislation are provided in Section 2.1.2.

For e-accessibility policy in general, and web accessibility policy in particular, several instruments exist at EU level. This is further developed in section 2.1.2.

• 2. 

  E-ACCESSIBILITY

2.1. E-accessibility state of play

This chapter provides a short overview of the current state of provision of accessible ICTs, followed by an overview of current non-legislative and legislative measures at EU-level regarding e-accessibility. Then a short overview is given of legislative measures in Member States and third countries. Finally, an explanation is provided for the action proposed by the 2008 Communication "Towards an Accessible Information Society".

2.1.1. Provision of accessible ICTs -- the e-accessibility deficit

The `MeAC'6 study conducted for the European Commission in 2006-2008 provides an

extensive analysis of the e-accessibility situation in the Member States and in some third countries. One of the main findings is that people with disabilities in Europe continue to face many barriers when using everyday ICT products and services that are now essential aspects of social and economic life.

This lack in e-accessibility can be found across the spectrum of ICT products and services, for example telephony, TV, web and self-service terminals. The following striking examples of the state of play of e-accessibility (as at end 2007 unless otherwise indicated) point to the barriers encountered by people with disabilities:

Text relay services (essential for the deaf and speech impaired) are only available in half of the Member States and emergency services are directly accessible by text telephone in only seven Member States.

Mobile operators in only seven Member States provide dedicated information for customers with disabilities on their websites.

On average, less than one-third of national language broadcasts of main public broadcasters in Europe were provided with subtitling (for deaf people) in 2006; there is wide variability (from 95% to none) in the amount of subtitling across individual countries.

On average, less than one-tenth of national language broadcasts of main commercial broadcasters in Europe were provided with subtitling in 2006; most of this is provided in just a few countries.

2.1.2. Non legislative EU action on e-accessibility

2.1.2.1. Research support

Sustained R&D in e-accessibility is important, as ICTs evolve rapidly and as new e- accessibility challenges appear. An example is digital television, whose menus are hard to navigate for people with dexterity or cognitive impairments or persons with reading difficulties (including some of the dyslexic, illiterate or foreign language speakers that in several countries represent a significant portion of the population).

Equally important, new technologies offer new opportunities to address participation barriers for persons with disabilities. A good example is direct brain-computer interaction by which a severely motor-disabled person (e.g. only able to blink an eye) is able to control devices `just'

by thinking.

Related to e-accessibility research is the Ambient Assisted Living joint research programme, (AAL) launched in 2008 to stimulate innovative ICT-based solutions for independent living and the prevention and management of chronic conditions of elderly people including their related disabilities

7.

For several years the approach in EU R&D has been that accessibility is best not "patched onto" existing mainstream technology, but rather designed into mainstream technology from the outset. This universal design or design for all approach is believed to deliver a double

benefit: firstly, technology that nearly anyone can use, including disabled persons; and secondly, cheaper e-accessibility. Specific research on assistive technology has also been undertaken. Current R&D work on e-accessibility therefore seeks to embed e-accessibility into modern mainstream ICT (e.g. mobile communications, navigation systems, home systems, personal computers and web)

8 as well as continued work on assistive technology.

The mainstreaming approach to e-accessibility also enables a better alignment between research and e-accessibility policy in general. Notably, research should deliver technical specifications that can provide input for formal or informal standardisation and thus can become reference points for "soft" or "hard" legislation. For example current audio- description

9 legislation in the UK is based on research work undertaken in the 90's with

European funding under the TIDE programme10. The alignment of e-accessibility research

As regards e-accessibility, the CIP is potentially a very important instrument: since the e- accessibility market is fragmented, deployment validation can deliver the evidence needed for industry and authorities to accept e-accessibility solutions across the board.

The CIP work programmes for 2007 and 2008 finance pilot schemes on e-accessibility and ICT for ageing.

2.1.2.3. Standardisation: Mandate 376

Standards are important to coordinate e-accessibility efforts across Europe. They are needed both in general to ensure a common understanding and application of e-accessibility principles, and more specifically to provide a yardstick against which e-accessibility can be assessed.

In 2005 the Commission issued a mandate12 to the European Standardisation Organisations

(ESOs) to develop common requirements for ICT in the field of public procurement, including conformance assessment mechanisms. The ESOs have the duty to establish efficient coordination mechanisms and to work in close cooperation with relevant stakeholders.

The main objectives of this mandate are to harmonise the accessibility requirements of public procurement of accessible ICT products and services, to identify a set of functional European requirements and to deliver European standards for e-accessibility. Mandate 376 will provide an electronic toolkit, enabling public procurers to make use of these harmonised requirements.

2.1.2.4. Measurement and benchmarking

An extensive survey of the implementation of e-accessibility provisions in the electronic communications Regulatory Framework was undertaken in 2006 by INCOM, the Inclusive Communication subgroup under the Communications Committee (COCOM).

13 A significant

lack of progress in implementing these e-accessibility provisions was reported, with a clear indication that this was due to their non-mandatory character. This has motivated the Commission to propose a reinforcement of the provisions in the context of the revision of the Directives.

The MeAC study (referred to in the introduction) delivered a major report in 2007 which constitutes a primary reference on the current availability of accessible ICT and the extent and effectiveness of policies across Europe and third countries, including the USA.

Award scheme16 in which e-accessibility is one of the 7 categories. The MeAC study created

a website providing country reports, benchmarking results and other relevant information.17

Industry, non-profit organisations and authorities regularly organise e-accessibility events. The European Commission also organises events on e-inclusion, including e-accessibility aspects, such as the ministerial conference on e-inclusion, in Vienna, from 30 November -- 2 December 2008.

18

2.1.2.6. Cooperation and coordination

Several groups collate information and draft policy papers in the field of e-accessibility:

INCOM addresses the state of play of implementing e-accessibility provisions in the

electronic communications framework, as previously explained.

A sub-group under TCAM19 focused on real-time text, which is essential for hearing and

speech-impaired users to communicate via telephone and reach among others emergency services. No solution could be agreed upon although the discussions did lead to the Commission proposing a pilot scheme under the ICT-PSP work programme on total conversation / accessible emergency services.

The e-inclusion subgroup of the i2010 high-level group20 held in-depth discussions on e-

accessibility and specific working sessions on web-accessibility. Participants in this subgroup are representatives from Ministries most concerned with e-inclusion in general.

The High level Group on disability that supports the Commission in the implementation of

the European Disability Action Plan21 that covers, amongst other ICT, links with

disability policy in general.

User-industry cooperation, notably on accessible digital television involved amongst

others EDF, AGE and EICTA22. An example was the e-Inclusion Partnership23, an

informal gathering of user organisations and ICT industry organised by the Commission.

Despite the above mentioned activities, systematic coordination and cooperation at European level that brings together all stakeholders and that addresses e-accessibility in a prospective rather than retrospective way is still lacking.

2.1.3. Legislative approaches

Electronic Communications Regulatory Framework

The Framework Directive24 on electronic communication requires national regulatory

authorities to promote equal choice, price and quality, and access to universal service for all users, including disabled users. The Universal Service Directive

25 addresses a number of

issues relevant to e-accessibility of fixed telephony services, such as specific measures to ensure access and affordability for all, where appropriate; access to operator and directory services; access to emergency calls; availability/access to public payphones and special tariffs.

These provisions are limited in two regards: they only cover fixed telephony services (not mobile telephony or telephone equipment) and they are not compulsory. In practice, Member States have made limited use of these provisions.

In the context of the current revision of the EU Electronic Communications Directives, the Commission has proposed strengthening existing provisions (see section 2.2.4).

Terminal equipment covered by the R&TTE Directive26

Article 3.3.f of the Directive entitles the Commission to propose an EC Decision establishing that some equipment should support certain features to facilitate use by users with a disability.

So far, this option has not been used. This Directive is currently being reviewed.

Broadcast TV covered by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive27

Article 3.c of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive states that Member States shall encourage media service providers to ensure that audio-visual media services are gradually made accessible to people with a visual or hearing disability. The Commission follows up on this provision with Member States and encourages its implementation.

Digital content covered by the copyright Directive28

Article 5.3.b. of the copyright Directive allows Member States to make exceptions to copyright rules and protections to facilitate access for disabled people. A recently published Green Paper

29 shows that, although Member States seem to have implemented the exceptions

Goods and services covered by the Public Procurement Directive30

The EU Public Procurement Directives of 2004 include provisions that encourage accessibility and design-for-all requirements to be included in public procurement. Practice shows that there is very little inclusion of accessibility requirements in public procurements of ICTs in Europe to date.

The Commission issued a mandate to the European Standardisation Organisations (see section 2.1.2.3) to draft standards and a toolkit to help public procurers (and suppliers) in Europe address e-accessibility requirements.

Equality legislation31

Article 5 of the Employment Equality Directive requires employers to take reasonable measures to ensure equality of access to employment for people with disabilities, unless such measures impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. Accessibility to ICT is indirectly concerned as an adaptation to equipment ensuring access to employment.

In addition, the Commission has recently adopted a proposal for a horizontal Directive on equal treatment among others on access to and supply of goods and services, also covering (even if not mentioned explicitly) ICT goods and services.

32 Article 4 of this proposal for a

Directive deals with effective and non discriminatory access for persons with disabilities and it is an important aspect of the EU's work towards implementation of the United Nations Convention on persons with disabilities

33.

Other legislation

Other pieces of EU legislation contain provisions on ICT and people with disabilities, such as legislation on value added tax and state aid exemptions.

34

2.1.3.2. Member State and third country legislation

The previously mentioned study carried out in 2008 on accessibility of ICT products and services for disabled and elderly people provides a comprehensive view of the legislative landscape across the Member States, and in some third countries.

Apart from this, in the absence of any EU legislation to date, a number of Member States have implemented anti-discrimination legislation in the field of goods and services, which address the accessibility of at least some commercial websites.

More generally, almost all Member States have some assistive technology legislation and / or public service provision in place to help people with disabilities acquire assistive technologies.

Horizontal or non-sector-specific legislation

Apart from legislation regulating specific ICT sectors, there are also examples of cross- sectoral and/or non-sector-specific approaches in some Member States, covering a number of ICT sectors within a single e-accessibility policy framework or measure. However, such approaches are not widespread amongst Member States. At EU-level, there is no such cross- sectoral measure in place.

There are two different types of cross-cutting legislative approaches in Member States and third countries, namely laws that make specific reference to ICTs in general and/or e- accessibility in particular and laws on broader disability (equality) themes, with an implicit e- accessibility component.

E-accessibility an explicit focus

Non-sectoral legislation that explicitly addresses e-accessibility issues can be found in some European countries, sometimes inspired by EU regulation such as the `employment equality' Directive.

35 Several countries have introduced equality or other legislation that explicitly

addresses e-accessibility issues in a more cross-cutting manner. According to the different jurisdictions within which such legislation has been enacted, they vary in terms of scope and other legal characteristics. No uniform approach is apparent, and the various approaches each have their strengths and weaknesses. Aspects of various approaches might serve as models of good practice, but no single approach yet appears to provide a comprehensive and effective horizontal approach.

In the USA the `Section 508' of the Rehabilitation Act is a key reference point.36

Implicit coverage of e-accessibility

completeness of existing measures and the degree to which existing measures are future- proof. There is no reason to assume that this situation has drastically improved since 2007. Reinforcement of a general approach to e-accessibility would therefore still have to aim for further improvement in these criteria.

The range of policy measures, illustrating the need for coherence and for cooperation and coordination is shown in the diagram below.

General policy approach to e-accessibility

Overview of instruments

Policy guidanceLegislation

-

-e-communications

Communications- R&TTE

• - 

  public procurement
• - 

  anti-discrimination
• - 

  Declarations
• - 

  Resolutions

Cooperation

R&D-i2010, disability policy groups

-Framework Programme -AAL 169- Legal, standards committees

• - 

  Industry & users dialoguesAwareness

-Best practice

-Benchmarking

-Events

DeploymentStandardi- sation

-CIP ICT PSP

-Structural funds

-ESOs. M376

• - 

  W3C, industry

Figure 2 General approach to e-accessibility -- overview of policy instruments

A coherent and timely policy approach is proposed by the 2008 Communication "Towards an Accessible Information Society". Coherence is needed

because of the multi-sectoral and

multi-dimensional range of issues to be addressed, as traditional boundaries blur, new themes emerge and technologies and markets change over time. A timely response is needed because ICT-based products and services continue to present major barriers to participation for large numbers of Europeans. In addition, the trend in fragmentation in the regulatory requirements being introduced across Member States may soon pose significant threats to the smooth functioning of the internal market.

and define priority action to improve e-accessibility. Representatives of key actors would collate work on existing priorities so that there is coherence between the necessary components (research and innovation, standardisation, legislation etc). Priority areas of work based on the public consultation and ongoing work are web accessibility, accessible digital TV, total conversation/accessible emergency services. PCs and self-service terminals are other priorities. This e-accessibility group will be reporting to the i2010 High Level Group, and financed through the budget foreseen for this in the CIP ICT PSP programme. Budget only concerns a few meetings per year for about 20 experts.

· This group could receive input from and provide guidance to existing relevant groups, i.e.

i2010 e-inclusion subgroup, mandate 376, INCOM, TCAM, and the Disability High level group.

· As the measures proposed are not mandatory, there is a strong appeal for users and

industry to take efforts to step up cooperation.

· Moreover, continued monitoring of both web accessibility and general e-accessibility

progress and implementation mechanisms is necessary. Studies in 2009 are due to produce e-accessibility implementation reports as well as further details on costs and benefits of e- accessibility.

· Under the 2009 CIP-ICT Policy support programme, a new thematic network on e-

accessibility and web accessibility, as proposed by the Communication, will further enhance and support stakeholder cooperation and the collation of experience and good practices.

· There is clearly a lack of awareness of possibilities and user needs. The 2008 public

consultation indicated strong support for information measures and exchanging best practice. The ePractice good practice exchange network on e-government, e-health and e- Inclusion, has already amassed much expertise on e-accessibility. Further support for this portal is proposed.

2.2.2. Supporting innovation and deployment

The Commission proposes to actively continue supporting e-accessibility and ICT for independent living of elderly and disabled people through the EU research programme with a further call for proposals in 2009.

2.2.3. Facilitating standardisation activities

More than 90% of respondents to the public consultation considered standardisation and technical specifications a high or relevant priority for future EU action on e-accessibility.

Internationally, in particular, standards cooperation can be further pursued, notably with the US, in the context of the review of `Section 508' of the US Rehabilitation Act (dealing with ICT) and the EU's work on Mandate 376.

2.2.4. Legislation

The `MEAC' study shows a clear correlation at national level between the existence of legislation and the current level of progress on e-accessibility.

39 Studies also point to the risks

of legal fragmentation in the EU due to different legislative measures. Based on this, and building on the 2005 Communication on e-accessibility and the 2007 Communication on e- Inclusion, the Commission has explored a more general legislative approach to e-accessibility.

However, given the vast, complex and evolving nature of e-accessibility, there is not yet a clear consensus on EU legislation specifically targeting e-accessibility. In the public consultation, 90% of user organisations considered binding legislation a high priority, versus only 33% of industry and public authorities.

There are also many open questions on the aspects of EU legislation on e-accessibility such as its scope, standards, compliance mechanisms, links to existing legislation, mix of bottom-up and top-down approach

40, mix of sectoral and general legislative action. A particularly

relevant development is the recent proposal for a directive on equal treatment. Furthermore, although there is a clear consensus on the need to act jointly to improve e-accessibility, there are different views on the next priorities to tackle.

The 2008 Communication "Towards an Accessible Information Society" emphasises the various options under current EU legislation that remain under-used. In addition it stresses the need to explore the options for improving e-accessibility through several pieces of EU legislation that are, or will be soon, under review, or have recently been proposed, notably:

· Directive 1999/5/EC on terminal equipment is under review: here the issue is whether to

activate Article 3.3.f for adopting specific accessibility provisions.

• 3. 

  WEB ACCESSIBILITY

3.1.1. Relevance and state of play

• a) 

  Relevance of web accessibility

Web accessibility gives people with disabilities the opportunity to perceive, understand, navigate, interact and contribute to the Web. The lack of web accessibility affects many

people: people with disabilities; elderly people; people with dyslexia, low literacy or not fluent in the language; people with low-bandwidth connections, older technologies or devices with limited display or interaction capabilities and new web users. When web accessibility is implemented it also benefits people whose abilities change as they age. These persons can only make use of websites if they are properly designed and if they meet their specific needs (see Figure 3).

Web accessibility has become particularly important because of the explosive growth in on- line information and interactive services provided on the web, from online banking and shopping, dealing with government and public services to communicating with distant relatives. If web accessibility is not achieved, many people are at risk of being partially or totally excluded from the information society.

Visual impairmentsVisual impairmentsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutionsHearing impairmentsHearing impairments

Use flexible layouts that can be adapted by users to viewing needs (e.g. size, formatting, colour and background colour of text)Use flexible layouts that can be adapted by users to viewing needs (e.g. size, formatting, colour and background colour of text)Provide volume control when using sounds, background music, Provide volume control when using sounds, background music,

videos with sound etc.videos with sound etc.

Provide textual descriptions of images, graphs and animations (so- called "alt" text) that can be read by screen reader softwareProvide textual descriptions of images, graphs and animations (so- called "alt" text) that can be read by screen reader softwareProvide sign-language alternatives of all textual content for users that Provide sign-language alternatives of all textual content for users that

only speak sign-language, e.g. signing videos or animationsonly speak sign-language, e.g. signing videos or animations

Provide audio description of the visual part of multimedia content such as videosProvide audio description of the visual part of multimedia content such as videosBarriersBarriersBarriersBarriersBarriersBarriersBarriersBarriers

Provide text alternatives of all relevant audio, Provide text alternatives of all relevant audio,

Layout not adaptable to Layout not adaptable to e.g. sub-titles / captioning for videose.g. sub-titles / captioning for videos

Provide content in a way that it can be read by screen reader software, e.g. by using valid HTML codeProvide content in a way that it can be read by screen reader software, e.g. by using valid HTML codeusers viewing needs (e.g. users viewing needs (e.g. Cannot hear sound Cannot hear sound

font-size, contrast)font-size, contrast)at all or at usual at all or at usual Avoid user alerts that are only based on Avoid user alerts that are only based on

volumevolumesound and provide a visual alternativesound and provide a visual alternative

Cannot see visual Cannot see visual

content (images / content (images / Cannot read textual Cannot read textual

multimedia)

Cognitive impairmentsmultimedia)content due to illiteracy

Cognitive impairmentscontent due to illiteracy Dexterity Dexterity

(some deaf)(some deaf)impairmentsimpairments

Provide elements (like buttons, Provide elements (like buttons,

Structure large amounts of texts, e.g. by using headings and sub- headings or by breaking down into several pages Structure large amounts of texts, e.g. by using headings and sub- headings or by breaking down into several pages Difficulties hitting Difficulties hitting menu items, form fields) of menu items, form fields) of

Difficult to Difficult to small elements on small elements on

• b) 

  EU policy measures

The importance of web accessibility has been recognised for many years by the European Institutions and Member States:

• - 

  In 2001 the Commission adopted a Communication on web accessibility, encouraging

Member States to endorse the Web Accessibility Initiative Guidelines41.

• - 

  In two Resolutions adopted in 2002 and 200342, the Council stressed the need to

increase efforts to speed accessibility to the web and its content.

• - 

  The European Parliament suggested in 2002 that all public websites be fully accessible

to disabled persons by 2003, the European Year of Disabled Persons43.

• - 

  In 2005, the Commission Communication on e-accessibility44 again drew attention to

the importance of EU-level policies in this field and the Ministerial Declaration on eInclusion at Riga in 2006 set as one of its priorities the promotion of inclusive eGovernment by ensuring accessibility of all public websites by 2010. However despite increasing awareness of authorities and other schemes, progress on web accessibility remains unsatisfactory. It was already clear at the end of 2007 that this objective would not be met, as only around 5% of public websites and only 3% of commercial websites across the EU were sufficiently accessible.

• - 

  The Communication on e-Inclusion in 200745 called upon Member States to agree by

mid 2008 on a roadmap for accessibility of public websites.

• c) 

  Websites accessibility in Member States

When the MeAC study tested a sample of key public and sectoral/commercial websites in each Member State, only a very small percentage were found to meet accepted international accessibility standards.

• - 

  12.5% and 5.3% of government websites were accessible for automated and manual

testing respectively46.

• - 

  For sectoral/commercial websites, just 3.9% passed the automated test and none

passed the manual test.

assessment of websites, various awareness campaigns, coordination with relevant stakeholders and research activities both at national and European level.

The public consultation showed that the majority of the respondents indicated that the above mentioned actions would contribute to a high level of availability of accessible web sites.

(83.4% generally agreed, whilst 38.5% strongly agreed and only 4.9% disagreed). About one in ten respondents (11.8%) had no opinion. Also, a clear majority of respondents perceived the need to encourage intranet websites to be accessible. In addition, 94.3% of respondents agreed with the statement that Member States should seek alignment with international standards.

3.2. Web accessibility activities

3.2.1. Non legislative activities supporting web accessibility

• a) 

  Research support

An example of EU R&D input to technology developments is the link between the W3C Web Accessibility and Ageing Task Forces

47, supported for data collection and dissemination by

the WAI-Age project48 funded under the 6th Framework Programme. This action aims at

better understanding the needs of the ageing community in the context of existing web accessibility guidelines. To this end, it provides a contribution from the ageing community into the work of the W3C in revising and complementing educational materials to better reflect the needs of the elderly and to pursue standards coordination in order to promote adoption and implementation of a common set of guidelines.

A cluster of research projects funded under the 6th Framework Programme also investigated

the harmonisation of web accessibility measurement, resulting in an assessment methodology (UWEM)

49, a CEN Workshop Agreement on Specifications for a Web Accessibility

Conformity Assessment Scheme and a Web Accessibility Quality Mark50.

• b) 

  Deployment / innovation support

In relation to deployment and innovation support, support can also come from the CIP programme. However, in the first two years of this programme (2007-2008), web accessibility was not singled out for funding.

specialised bodies and, when adopted, it will become the international reference for web accessibility.

W3C has developed three sets of guidelines to ensure web accessibility: Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG), authoring tools accessibility guidelines (ATAG), and User agents' accessibility guidelines (UAAG)

51, addressing website owners, providers of authoring

tools and providers of user agents (web browsers and related assistive technologies) respectively.

At European level, work continues on the Mandate 376, which closely follows the work of W3C/WAI.

Strong support was given for the coordination of web accessibility efforts across Europe in the public consultation.

Many Member States have developed national standards or regulations based on these W3C WAI guidelines.

• d) 

  Measurement and coordination

Both at national and European levels substantial measurement and benchmarking are being carried out. One of the most recent is the MeAC study, which reported at the end of 2007 the finding of a severe lack of web accessibility, as mentioned above.

52

• e) 

  Awareness and promotion

In the specific field of web accessibility, the Commission supports the Web Accessibility Benchmarking (WAB) Cluster of projects.

53 The cluster is developing an EU-harmonised

assessment methodology for Web accessibility, based on W3C/WAI and to be synchronised with the planned migration from WCAG1.0 to WCAG2.0. This should ensure that evaluation tools and methods developed for global monitoring or for local evaluation are mutually compatible and coherent (and with WAI).

Awareness and promotion campaigns are carried out in many countries. At European level, awareness and promotion campaigns were launched at Ministerial conferences and related exhibitions (Riga 2006, Lisbon 2007 and Vienna 2008), and the 2008 e-Inclusion Award in which e-accessibility, including web accessibility, is one of 7 best practice award categories. Best practices in web accessibility are promoted through the ePractice portal.

3.2.2. Legislative approaches

• a) 

  At European level

There are no specific web accessibility legislative measures at European level. However, some of the legislation on e-accessibility mentioned in section 2.1.3 also applies to web accessibility.

• b) 

  At Member States and third country level

In Member States, accessibility of public websites has received policy attention in recent years. However, there is considerable variation in terms of the type and nature of policy approaches implemented. The study report on web accessibility mentioned in the introduction gives a detailed overview of the situation and identifies key differences between Member States, e.g. in terms of:

Type of approach:

Six Member States have direct legislation on web accessibility (AT, DE, CZ, ES, FI, IT, SK), while others have indirect legislation (e.g. equal rights legislation) on web accessibility (F, IE, MT, UK). Other Member States have addressed web accessibility through non-legislative approaches of various types.

Websites covered:

The majority of Member States focus only on public websites in their direct measures on web accessibility. The available evidence indicates that the scope of coverage of public websites varies; some Member States include all levels of government and public entities, whereas others only directly cover central government. One country (DE) explicitly covers the intranets of public bodies. In the few cases where commercial websites are directly covered (DE, IT, PT), this tends to be done through `encouragement' measures.

Timeframe for web accessibility:

About half of the Member States have implemented a specific timeframe within which web accessibility is be achieved, with time horizons ranging from 2005 to 2010. In some countries (NL, SK, UK) new websites are given an immediate deadline whereas existing websites are given some time to adapt.

Enforcement:

Enforcement is not very visible in the majority of countries. Where it is the case, it tends to be based on persuasion (e.g. through award schemes, "naming and shaming"). Penalties for non- compliance are only apparent in a few countries (ES, FR, IT, SK).

Conformity assessment:

In the majority of countries conformity assessment schemes have not been put in place; only in three Member States have these schemes so far been set up as part of a dedicated government policy (AT, NL, IT). In some countries voluntary web accessibility labelling schemes have emerged, operated by NGOs or commercial parties.

Monitoring:

Benchmarking of accessibility of web sites has been identified in less than half of the Member States; where it happens, annual benchmarking has remained an exception. The various monitoring efforts pursued so far vary greatly in terms of scope (e.g. number and types of websites sampled) and methods applied (e.g. accessibility criteria applied, self-evaluation vs. external evaluation); it is thus difficult to compare outcomes across countries.

As regards third countries, it is important to mention the USA: Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act specifically provides that federal agency websites must be accessible to federal employees and the general public. Federal contractors also are bound by this mandate. The obvious strength of Section 508 is its clear applicability to federal websites as provided by statute. Its weakness lies in the reliance on individuals with disabilities to bring about enforcement by filing complaints.

3.3. Further web accessibility actions

3.3.1. Rationale for further action on web accessibility

There is clear consensus on the importance of accessing the internet, the modest achievements to date as regards web accessibility, and the need for further action to improve the situation.

Since there are no EU legislative provisions on web accessibility, the main responsibility for improving web accessibility remains with the Member States and individual service providers. Nevertheless, as explained in the Communication "Towards an Accessible Information Society" further action can also be taken at EU level. The overall goal would be, by better coordinating Member States' action, to reinforce, accelerate and extend existing efforts to remove accessibility barriers that prevent citizens, government and business in Europe from realising the full potential of the web.

requirements -- in absence of a European standard -- is WCAG 2.0 as the guidelines are not yet approved.

54

While binding web-accessibility legislation might be expected to have a stronger and more consistent impact across the Member States, for practical purposes such legislation would require the availability of the relevant standard. For this reason the schemes in the Communication, for which additional background is presented below, focus on the preparation for a swift implementation of the new standard.

3.3.2. Estimated benefits and costs of implementing web accessibility

There is no definitive picture available of the costs of web accessibility for websites owners. Part of the reason for this is that costs vary according to many different factors. However, it is generally accepted that costs are typically much lower at the design stage than the costs of retrofitting accessibility for existing websites. Costs are likely to increase with increasing size and complexity of websites, particularly for retrofitting existing websites. The evidence suggests that costs are often overestimated and they have tended not to be considered excessive by the courts when action is taken by disabled people on grounds of inaccessibility

55.

Despite the likely variability in costs according to the circumstances, the available evidence to date suggests that costs of accessibility would not represent an undue burden for web owners

in most cases.

Alongside costs, benefits should also be taken into account. The study on `the accessibility to ICT products and services for disabled and elderly people' (mentioned in the introduction) provides a detailed model of the cost-benefits of investment in web accessibility linked to transaction cost savings from citizens using eGovernment services. Based on the available evidence, the model takes a range of estimates for the additional costs associated with making public websites accessible in the Member States and examines how the cost-benefit implications vary with increasing `reach' to the disabled and older people, who would otherwise be excluded through lack of accessibility.

The model makes a number of assumptions:

(1) The costs of annual spending on online public web sites are extrapolated from UK data from 2004 to 2007 and from the EU-25, correcting for the actual online public services availability of each country. The empirical data available on the additional costs for making a website accessible are limited. Therefore the model allows these costs to be taken as a variable (see the column headings in the table below, with additional costs varying from 2% to 30%).

(3) There is the same level of recurring costs per annum. This also is a conservative assumption as in many cases the costs of maintaining accessibility should be a lot lower than the initial (retrofit) costs, especially if good design principles are adopted at

an early stage.

(4) Government cost savings per transaction of 18.22, which is a conservative estimate (based on data from the UK).

(5) On average an online citizen will use online government services (of any type) twice a year.

(6) Consumer benefits are calculated taking average time savings of 69 minutes by using online instead of `traditional' services (data from EU-15, Norway, Iceland). Time savings are valued on the basis of actual consumer wages in each country. Consumer costs of PC and Internet connection are not taken into account (as these are likely not specifically incurred for consumers carrying out transactions with government).

The analysis shows that the overall cost-benefit return becomes increasingly positive as cost estimates for accessibility go down and additional reach percentages go up. Most cost/reach scenarios are positive for governments and only the highest cost and lowest reach ones are negative.

Reach Additional costs to achieve website accessibility

amongst Economic costs-benefit 2% 5% 15% 30%

target group categories

government costs for e-accessibility -24,256,800 -60,641,999 -181,925,997 -363,851,994

government transaction cost savings 158,223,882 158,223,882 158,223,882 158,223,882

5% net government costs/benefits 133,967,082 97,581,883 -23,702,115 -205,628,112

consumer benefits 153,112,707 153,112,707 153,112,707 153,112,707

total cost/benefit 287,079,790 250,694,590 129,410,592 -52,515,405

government costs for e-accessibility -24,256,800 -60,641,999 -181,925,997 -363,851,994

government transaction cost savings 316,447,764 316,447,764 316,447,764 316,447,764

10% net government costs/benefits 292,190,964 255,805,765 134,521,767 -47,404,230

consumer benefits 306,225,415 306,225,415 306,225,415 306,225,415

achieved because accessible design requires attention to good design principles56. These

include increased search engine optimisation, enhanced usability for all users and technical benefits such as lower site maintenance costs, reduced server load, improved interoperability and preparation for advanced technologies. These benefits can result in substantial economic benefits in terms of increased business reach and direct cost savings through reduced personnel costs, amount of server capacity needed and avoiding the need for multiple versions of a site for different user devices

57.

3.3.3. Accelerating in a common way the realisation of modern web accessibility

A common approach for web accessibility at European level is supported by 96% of respondents to the public consultation. Success of a common European approach relies mainly on Member States, individual service providers and the Commission. A common approach should address accelerated and coherent (joint) preparation for the new international guidelines WCAG 2.0 and the outcome of Mandate 376 as well as awareness and promotion.

There is broad consensus that WCAG 2.0 guidelines are the technical specifications to be met for web accessibility. Once W3C reaches agreement on the guidelines, European Standardisation can be completed within the framework of Mandate 376.

To prepare for a swift incorporation of the new specifications into national rules and actively promote their implementation, Member States should take the following steps:

• - 

  Update the rules to take account of the new specifications (or adopt rules where accessibility requirements do not yet exist).
• - 

  Ensure the requirements are made public and visible (e.g. through a single contact point, see below).
• - 

  Translate the specifications and accompanying documentation to ensure a proper understanding and implementation at national level.
• - 

  Follow the same timeline for updating and publication, so that Member States are in a position to compare their choices for aspects of the WCAG 2.0 specification and Mandate 376 results and seek alignment in order to avoid fragmentation and reduce efforts (economies of scale).

tools providers, web content providers, etc. In such training schemes direct involvement of persons with disabilities is desirable to understand their needs and expectations.

Member States can also encourage non public websites providing services of general interest to be made accessible. 93% of respondents to the public consultation agree that the common European approach should not merely address public websites but also other websites providing services of general interest. The aim here is to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from essential services (see the detailed explanation of services of general interest in the related Communication

58).

In terms of supporting the exchange of practices, a role can be played by the ePractice portal as the one stop shop to exchange advice, experiences and events on practices of e- Government, e-Health and e-Inclusion. ePractice offers the most complete information and exchange opportunities for these areas in Europe. Real life cases, insight and lessons learnt are shared. It represents a real bridge between these communities, as there is a wealth of interesting lessons to be learnt.

An important task is to improve the awareness and understanding of web accessibility. Problems of accessibility often stem from a lack of proper information. Member States can make sure that persons with disabilities receive sufficient and clear information on web accessibility. This should also include information on how to use assistive technology in relation to websites.

For better visibility and support, an accessibility statement on a website can provide useful information such as the accessibility policy of the website, compliance with relevant specifications and support for persons with disabilities. It can be presented in the way "privacy statements" or other "legal information" is available in many websites today. It can of course be linked to a certification and labelling scheme if that exists. The general level of agreement in the public consultation in favour of such a statement was 89%.

Reporting on web accessibility implementation is crucial to assess the situation and progress made and to decide on further steps. In order to reduce fragmentation Member States can work together to develop a common assessment and monitoring methodology. Assessment and reporting should then also concern compliance and costs for web accessibility. Likewise, collecting user input is key to comprehensively assess the situation and better understand their needs and expectations.