Cabinet Office
The project has conducted a policy survey from Member States and the European Commission about possible factors that may influence accessibility such as national strategy, legal frameworks, monitoring arrangements, awareness, training and tools and other issues. The results have identified a wide range of policies for engaging practitioners in improving eAccessibility.
The survey of Member States in the EU sought to establish the scope of public policy towards eAccessibility. Under the auspices of the European Public Administration Network (EPAN) [External Website], the questionnaire was sent in May 2005 to a named policy adviser in each of the 25 Member States and the European Commission. Replies were received from every Member State (with only one exception), giving a total of 25 including the European Commission.
The responses to this survey are analysed in the rest of this section which concludes with a survey of policy and practice in the rest of the world.
All but two Member States confirmed the existence of a specific current target (or plan) to improve the accessibility of public sector websites, including funding projects to meet the target. A further three states indicated that they are actually at a relatively similar, early, stage in engaging with web accessibility. Although some of these five states that are at an early stage are new Member States, this is not a general trend, with clear evidence of stronger engagement from the others.
Invited to define the timescale and scope of that target (or plan), nearly 50% (twelve) Member States provided a timescale that was no later than 2008 for implementing their plans and meeting targets. There is, as might be expected, considerable variation in the scale of the plans, and it is also unclear whether WCAG conformance is being consistently referenced, and/or to what specific level. So it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion on the likely aggregate impact on eAccessibility across the EU of these Member State initiatives.
In response to a question about progress since January 2004, eighteen respondents were able to refer to some recent activity.
Finally, respondents also described how the programme concerning web accessibility is organised in their country, referring to any codes of practice and guidelines and specifying the ministry responsible for eAccessibility. Again there is considerable variety in how this is structured; but in only about 25% of cases does there appear to be a clear locus of overall responsibility for ensuring the implementation of an eAccessibility plan
A clear majority of the responses (16 out of 24) indicate that at least one item of legislation has been introduced that is relevant to inclusive access to web services
In addition, the European Union does not operate to a legal framework, but states that ‘there is a public commitment emerging from the e-Europe work and reflected in the communication of web accessibility COM (2001) 529’. Subsequently, during the drafting of this report, a new European Commission communication on eAccessibility [External Website] was published, COM (2005) 425 . This notes the relevance of Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the EC (providing for action to combat discrimination) and of a number of European Directives related to the information society, which specifically refer to the inclusion of persons with disabilities and older people.
Respondents also provided supporting information about the legislation, such as the coverage, the name of the law, the year when first enacted and the level of government. For example, in the case of Germany, there is legislation at federal level, but the majority of the states (Länder) also have enacted legal provisions on web accessibility
However, there are also examples of strong practical engagement with accessibility, even where there is no explicit legal requirement, as in Denmark. This suggests that the most appropriate role for legislation depends significantly on local practice and context.
The survey continued by inviting respondents to list the bodies responsible for the specific issue of web accessibility and the extent and scale of their responsibility. Fifteen confirmed that there is a central body responsible for managing this agenda.
A minority of Member States (9 out of 24) recorded the existence of legal incentives for websites that do not achieve a specified standard of accessibility. In this study, the possibility of incentives appeared to be the influence that had the strongest individual correlation (although still relatively weak) with accessibility outcomes. The full replies are summarized in Table 1. The responses indicate that Member States are implementing a wide variety of incentives for eAccessibility, ranging from formal incentives through to various kinds of more positive or pro-active reward. The most common forms of incentive are relatively informal, such as adverse peer comment and low rankings in public comparisons
Some countries use the .gov sub-domain of the appropriate country top-level-domain (TLD) as a device for identifying public sector websites that are mandated (monitored, sanctioned) to be conformant with some specific level of accessibility (for example, .gv at,.gov.uk,). However, many relevant public services sites, such as educational institutions and agencies, do not fall naturally within such a scope. So, while this approach provides a pragmatic and effective starting point, it is important not to restrict policy and planning along such lines, as significant public sector websites will remain unmonitored.
| Member State | Incentive(legal or otherwise) |
|---|---|
| Austria | There are no real sanctions for the lack of conformance with W3C WAI Guidelines, but accessibility is an integral part of the fundamental principles of the Austrian e- government strategy. Conformity with the WAI Guidelines is, therefore, one of the criteria that must be fulfilled in order to obtain the Austrian E-government Quality Mark, which confirms that a site fulfils the standards and specifications of the Austrian e-government strategy (see http://www.guetesiegel.gv.at) [External Website]. If, subsequently, the guidelines are violated, the E-government Quality Mark is suspended till the corrections are made or is even cancelled if, after a period of time for upgrading, insufficient changes are made to conform with the accessibility guidelines. |
| Denmark | Many public websites participate in the yearly competition ‘Best on the Web’. eAccessibility is a part of the competition, which means that some websites get a lower score if they do not fulfil the eAccessibility requirements. |
France |
Under Article 47 of the law, sanctions may be applied, for which their enforcement will be defined as a last resort. |
| Germany | The Act on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (BGG) introduced the right to legal action taken by an association (representative action right). Under these provisions, associations recognised under the BGG can, even if there is no infringement of their own rights, request a determination by a court that any of the rights detailed in the BGG have been infringed, provided that their area of responsibilities as defined in their articles of association is affected. So far, no practical findings are available as regards such legal action. |
| Ireland | Individual cases may be taken under the Employment Equality Act , Equality Act and Equal Status Act |
| Italy | New contracts drawn up by public administrations concerning the building of websites will not be considered valid unless they comply with accessibility criteria. Existing contracts must adhere to the provisions relating to accessibility requirements. Failure to comply with the provisions of the law implies both executive responsibility and disciplinary action as well as possible criminal prosecution and civil liability provided for by the current laws. |
| Latvia | Instruction of Cabinet of Ministers in a paper entitled ‘Procedure by which state institutions put information in the internet’ |
| Malta | Where the website is part of the public service, pressure is applied so that the erring portion will be fixed. Failing this, the website may be removed from online until the problem is fixed. Great attention is given where a service to the citizen is concerned.Where this is a website in the private sector, the website may be brought under pressure to conform with requirements by the two organisations FITA / KNPD. |
| United Kingdom | In the public sector the most effective sanction is peer group/ministerial pressure to comply with accessibility standards. Within the .gov.uk domain, the UK has a sanction that could result in withdrawal of the domain name. The top level sanction is that the Disability Right Commission will support an individual with their complaints and resolve it, using the courts where necessary. |
More than half of the responses (14 out of 24) indicate the existence of ongoing monitoring of accessibility, which is encouraging. This appears to be concentrated overwhelmingly on public sector sites. There is very wide variation in:
The survey also asked about other studies or projects that have been organised to check accessibility of government websites. Fifteen respondents referred to such a study or project.
Despite the high level of monitoring taking place, only a small number of responses (6 out of 24) offered estimates of percentage conformance with WCAG version 1.0. At Level A for public sector websites, four respondents estimated 10% (or less) conformance and another three at 20% or higher. At Level Double-A one Member State estimated 25% conformance (but did not specify any estimate for Level A), three estimated 10% conformance and two estimated no more than 3%. For private sector websites only one Member State was able to venture any estimate.
The general policy with regard to user accessibility complaints is that they should be directly referred to, and handled by, the particular organisation operating the website. However there are some examples of more formal, independently mediated procedures (e.g. Malta, Netherlands). Experiences here may provide useful guidance to other Member States.
In answer to a further question about court cases relating to an inaccessible website, just one Member State reported such a case. This was not concerned specifically with web accessibility but with much more general considerations of reasonable accommodation. Although the case was decided (against the plaintiff) on relatively narrow legal grounds, it is of interest in raising a more general issue of information access for users with disability, and what the limits of reasonable accommodation may be. In this particular case the plaintiff argued for a specific form of accommodation (Braille) even though, on the evidence of the defendant, this was dramatically more expensive to provide than certain other alternatives, such as web-based text or HTML to be rendered via speech synthesis. (Note: Internationally, the most famous court case to date has been the case in Australia of Maguire vs SOCOG relating to the Sydney Olympics website in 2000, which IBM as the provider of the website lost).
This part of the survey focused on two questions.
The survey asked, firstly, about web accessibility training initiatives in the public sector. Eleven Member States report specific initiatives in training, but these appear to be of significantly different scope and level. It may be useful to explore opportunities for best practice exchanges in this area.
The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation is currently developing its public procurement accessibility toolbox further, and any public institution in Denmark can now use the new tool. This works as a database, where the organisation specifies the functionality demanded from the ICT system that is being procured. The database will then create an accessibility requirement specification.
It asked, secondly, about the availability of W3C WAI Guidelines in the national language(s) of each Member State. According to the responses, the text is not made available in the national languages of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia.Translations are being prepared for Poland and the Slovak Republic. In addition, minority languages of EU Member States are often not covered.
Speakers of these languages must therefore rely on texts in languages other than their native language, but the barriers do not end there as there is often a need, not just for the core WCAG document itself, but also for extensive support and tutorial materials to be available in localised forms. This would be an appropriate area for national authorities to consider more systematic intervention.
As well as giving respondents an opportunity to make any additional comments, this section of the survey enabled them to reply to two specific questions.
The first of these concerned the use of any certification system / quality mark for accessible websites (as opposed to a simple monitoring system). Fifteen responses indicate that there is currently no local certification or quality mark scheme for web accessibility. Some of these, however, did indicate that such a scheme would be desirable or may be introduced in the future. In the Member States where such schemes already exist, there is very wide variation in their nature:
This variability naturally makes comparisons difficult. The European Commission notes ongoing activity towards a possible harmonised Europe-wide quality mark. The value of any such harmonised mark would depend on the willingness of individual Member States to endorse and promote it.
The Design4all Evaluation gives a periodical, accurate and independent check of the accessibility of websites for people with disabilities and the elderly. It was based on the project Drempelsweg and is now based on the Quality Mark drempelvrij.nl. This Quality Mark was a project of all Dutch stakeholders. The scheme assures you of better quality and control over the logo and the inspections.
The Design4all evaluation includes a personal account; online reports page; online helpdesk; online support; possibility for extra checks; complaints procedure etc. Websites that comply with the WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 Guidelines qualify for a quality mark and receive an official Certificate of Accessibility.
Source: http://www.accessibility.nl/toetsing [External Website].
A small, but noticeable, number of responses (5 out of 24) explicitly suggest a need for a stronger legal framework of measurable and enforceable requirements for web accessibility. These would immediately affect the public sector, but it is also envisaged that they would all be extended to the private sector. On the other hand, several responses emphasised instead the need for encouragement of good practice, and one response argued that a ‘qualification and audit process’ might actually do more harm than good.
Other general points of interest include:
In all, the survey identified ten influencing factors that might have an impact on web accessibility:
| Section of survey | Influencing factors |
|---|---|
| National strategy | Current government target Timescale no later than 2008 Activity since 2004 |
| Legal frameworks | Legislation Responsible body Existence of incentives |
| Monitoring arrangements | Monitoring list Other studies or projects |
| Awareness, training and tools | Training initiatives |
| Other issues | Certification system |
Together they can be seen as forming an overall index of engagement with web accessibility policy. The responses on these ten areas of potential influence are summarised in Chart 2 overleaf. Each respondent was invited to state if a certain feature of policy existed or not at the current time (e.g. legislation or regulation that relates to, or has an impact on, web accessibility).
Chart 2 Influences on accessibility across EU
Although the focus of this study is on EU Member States and European institutions, it is equally important to look for good practice from the rest of the world. In assessing what has happened elsewhere, we identified Australia, Canada and Hong Kong in particular as sources of best practice through their early and continuing initiatives in web accessibility. A summary of good practice is provided in Appendix 5 for each of these three countries. These summaries show that web accessibility cannot be fixed overnight and it may take several years before policies, procedures and initiatives are implemented.
Ensure effective liaison with all EU-wide organisations (e.g. EIAO, EDeAN, Support-EAM, eAccessibility Expert Group) to encourage the sharing of best practice and a harmonised approach across the EU so that eAccessibility becomes part of the mainstream for online services, e.g. the link between accessibility and usability.
Ensure that EU public procurement policy now builds applicable W3C WAI guideline requirements into all procurements of new website designs, major upgrades, and all outsourced content production (such as reports, publications etc).
Assess the potential for a practical style guide with common ‘look and feel’ standards for public service websites in line with the Canadian model, involving disabled users.
Produce a plan for improving awareness throughout the country by reviewing all the examples of engagement identified in this survey as ideas for improving awareness of web accessibility.
See Section 5.2 for full list of recommendations