• Save
European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility

on

  • 807 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
807
Views on SlideShare
807
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility Presentation Transcript

  • 1. European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility 16 th February 2012 Roberto Torena Cristóbal Brussels Office Manager
  • 2.
    • What does accessibility and accessible design mean?
    • Why is it important and what is the position of the W3C?
    • Accessibility in the Web
      • Essential Components
      • How People with Disabilities Use the Web
      • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
    • Web monitorisation studies
      • WAB Cluster results
      • Study 1. European Internet Accessibility Observatory (EIAO) (2008)
      • Study 2. Accessibility of European Commission websites (2009)
      • Study 3. Web accessibility in European countries (2009)
      • Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011)
    • Monitoring eAccessibility in the ICTs
      • Mandate 376 and the first European Standard (EN)
      • Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011)
    Index European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 3. Extent to which products , systems , services , environments and facilities can be used by people from a population with the widest range of characteristics and capabilities to achieve a specified goal in a specified context of use [1]. What does accessibility mean? European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 4.
    • Design focused on principles of extending standard design to persons with some type of performance limitation to maximize the number of potential customers who can readily use a product, building or service, which may be achieved by:
    • Designing products, services and environments that are readily usable by most users without any modification ,
    • Making products or services adaptable to different users (adapting user interfaces), and
    • Having standardized interfaces to be compatible with special products for persons with disabilities [1].
    What does accessible design mean? European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 5.
    • The UNCRPD (article 9) recognizes access to ICT , including the Web , as a basic human right [2]
    • The UNCRPD has been ratified by the EU and most MS [3]
    • Supports:
      • Disabled people
      • Older people
      • People with low digital literacy
      • People with situational constraints
      • People using old devices or low bandwidth communications, etc.
    • There is also a strong business case for accessibility [4, 5]
    Why is it important? European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 6. “ The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.” Tim Berners-Lee W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web (WWW) [6] What is the position of the W3C? European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 7. Accessibility in the Web European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 8. Essential Components of Web Accessibility European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility Web developers normally use authoring tools and evaluation tools to create Web content [7].
  • 9. Example of source code [8]: <! DOCTYPE html PUBLIC &quot;-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN&quot; &quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd&quot;> < html xmlns =&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; xml : lang =&quot;es&quot; lang =&quot;es&quot;>< head > < title > Technosite, expertos en accesibilidad. </ title > < meta http-equiv =&quot;Content-Type&quot; content =&quot;text/html; charset=iso-8859-1&quot; /> < meta name =&quot;keywords&quot; content =&quot;Technosite, Fundación ONCE, Fundosa, página web, Fundosa Technosite, soluciones integrales, Internet, consultoría estratégica, accesibilidad, accesibilidad web, usabilidad, e-business, business intelligence, e-learning, gestión integral de portales, consultoría, concepto gráfico, diseño creativo, … Essential Components of Web Accessibility European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 10. Essential Components of Web Accessibility European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility People use Web browsers , media players , assistive technologies , or other &quot;user agents&quot; to get and interact with the content. [7].
  • 11. Example of a web browser output [8]: Essential Components of Web Accessibility European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 12. Video with an introduction of the usage of a screen reader (an example of an Assistive Technology, AT) in the documents and in the web [9]: How People with Disabilities Use the Web European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 13. The WCAG documents explain how to make Web content accessible [10] Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility Core Documents
  • 14.
    • Web content must be [11]:
    • Perceivable - Users must be able to perceive the information being presented (it can't be invisible to all of their senses)
    • Operable - Users must be able to operate the interface (the interface cannot require interaction that a user cannot perform)
    • Understandable - Users must be able to understand the information as well as the operation of the user interface
    • Robust - Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents , including assistive technologies .
    The 4 principles of the WCAGs European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 15.
    • Under each principle there is a list of guidelines [12]:
    • 1. Perceivable
      • 1.1 Provide text alternatives
      • 1.2 Provide alternatives for time-based media
      • 1.3 Create content that can be presented in different ways
      • 1.4 Make it easier for users to see and hear content
    • 2. Operable
      • 2.1 Make all functionality available from a keyboard
      • 2.2 Provide users enough time to read and use content
      • 2.3 Do not design content in a way that cause seizures
      • 2.4 Provide ways to help users navigate and find content
    • 3. Understandable
      • 3.1 Make text content readable and understandable.
      • 3.2 Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.
      • 3.3 Help users avoid and correct mistakes.
    • 4. Robust
      • 4.1 Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies .
    The 12 guidelines of the WCAGs European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 16.
    • Under each guideline, there are success criteria [11]:
    • written as a statement that will be either true or false
    • written to be technological neutral
    • Some can be automated using software evaluation programs, others require human testers
    • Example [12]:
    • Guideline 1.1 Text Alternatives
      • Success criteria “1.1.1 Non-text Content” : All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below. (Level A)
    The success criteria of the WCAGs European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 17.
    • The Success Criteria are assigned to one of the three levels of conformance ( A, AA or AAA ) depending on [13]:
    • whether it is essential
    • whether it is possible to satisfy it for all Web sites and types of content
    • whether it requires skills that could reasonably be achieved by the content creators
    • whether it would impose limits on the &quot;look & feel&quot; and/or function of the web page
    • whether there are no workarounds if the Success Criterion is not met
    Levels of conformance European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 18.
    • Several conformity assessment types are possible [1]
    • The two more commonly used are :
      • Supplier’s declaration of conformity . Statement issued by a supplier or manufacturer
      • Third party certification . An assessment and certification performed by a body that is independent of the supplier or manufacturer
    Conformity assessment types: Third party certification vs. Supplier’s declaration of conformity European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 19. Conformance logo European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 20. Example of certification European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 21. Web monitorisation studies European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 22.
    • Unified Web Evaluation Methodology (UWEM 1.2) [14]
    • Two evaluation procedures:
      • Expert or Tool based
    • Sampling resources
      • Non-random sampling
        • Core Resource List
      • Random sampling
    • WCAG 1.0 Level A and AA
    • Reporting evaluation results: a conformance claim , a text-based report, a machine-readable report and/or a scorecard report
    • F(s) = Failure rate for a web site
    WAB Cluster results (2008) 26 indicators 240 indicators European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 23. Expert testing vs. automatic testing European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility Expert testing Automatic testing
    • Advantages
    • Check more success criteria
    • Judgment of difficult cases and WCAG interpretation
    • Focused on unique pages a selection of the Core Resource List.
    • Disadvantages
    • Costs more than automated testing
    • Requires human input
    • Advantages
    • Require less time and efforts
      • Larger number of web sites
      • Larger number of pages per site
      • More frequent re-assessments
    • Requires minimal human supervision
    • Immediate feedback
    • Disadvantages
    • Can only test &quot;Yes&quot; or &quot;No&quot;
    • Introduce false positives (e.g. cannot tell if an alt attribute is correct)
    • Does not distinguish the Core Resource List ( random sampling )
  • 24. European Internet Accessibility Observatory (EIAO) [15] WAB Cluster results (2008) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 25.
    • 24 European Member States and EC websites [15]
    • Websites selected from Capgemini’s study for evaluating online services:
      • about 2,500 unique government web sites
    • Up to 6,000 crawled pages for each website
      • Random sampling : Up to 600 pages per website
    • Automated testing of WCAG 1.0 Level AA
      • Covers 24 of the 26 automatable tests of UWEM 1.2
    • eGovMon offers/uses an updated version of EIAO tool [16]
    Study 1. European Internet Accessibility Observatory (EIAO) (2008) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 26.
    • Accessibility of European Commission websites, comparison and recommendation provision
    • Websites selected by the European Commission ( governmental websites )
      • 7 websites
    • Non-random sampling ( C ore Resource List )
      • 30 pages for eInclusion and <30 for the remaining websites
    • Manual testing carried out by experts
      • WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 Level A and AA
    • Accessibility and usability tests carried out by users
    • Information Architecture analysis carried out by experts in the eInclusion Unit website
    Study 2. Accessibility of European Commission websites (2009) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 27.
    • Level of compliance with WCAG 2.0, and approaches to implement those specifications (focus on the transitioning from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0) [17]
    • 9 European Member States and US
    • Websites selected by their relevance : governmental websites and private / sectoral websites
      • 120 websites (12 per country)
    • Automatic testing of WCAG 1.0 Level A ( Test Accessibilidad Web, TAW )
      • Random sampling: 25 pages per website
    • Manual assessment of WCAG 2.0 Level A conformance
      • Non-random sampling: 3 pages per website (home, contact and search pages)
    Study 3. Web accessibility in European countries (2009) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 28.
    • Monitor the status and progress made in eAccessibility and identifying the best practices in the fields of legislation, policies and practices
    • Focus on a set of technologies , not only in web [18]
    • 12 European Member States and Australia , Canada and USA
    • Websites selected by national experts : governmental websites and private / sectoral websites
      • 120 websites (8 per country)
    • Non-random sampling ( C ore Resource List )
      • 25 pages per website
    • Both automated and manual testing by national experts:
      • Conformance Claim
      • Automated testing (TAW) in WCAG 1.0 Level A and Double-A
      • Manual testing of a set of critical points (both WCAG 1.0 and 2.0)
      • (3-4 representative pages per site)
    Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 29. Monitoring eAccessibility in the ICTs European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 30.
    • EC M376 requires the three European standard organisations CEN , CENELEC and ETSI to harmonise and facilitate public procurement of accessible ICT products and services by [17]:
    • identifying a set of functional accessibility requirements
    • developing an on-line toolkit to help public procurers in their procurement process
    • They are producing the first European Standard [20] that specifies:
    • the functional accessibility requirements applicable to ICT products and services
    • a full description of the test procedures and evaluation methodology for each requirement
    Mandate 376 and the first European Standard (EN) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 31.
    • Monitor the status and progress made in eAccessibility and identifying the best practices in the fields of legislation, policies and practices [18]
    • Scope
      • Countries: 12 EU, 3 Non-EU + 2 voluntary basis
        • EU countries: Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
        • Reference Non-EU countries: United States, Australia and Canada.
        • Countries participating in a voluntary basis: Norway, Greece
      • Period of analysis : 2010-2011
    Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 32.
      • Selection of technologies to be monitored
    Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility TELEPHONY: Fixed Mobile Special telephones (text and videotelephone) Mobile Web INTERNET: Web COMPUTERS: Software Hardware MEDIA: Analogue television Digital television HOMES: Digital homes Telecare URBAN ENVIRONMENT: ATMs Vending machines Virtual kiosks Digital information panels EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT: Electronic books Elearning platforms ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Hardware Software
  • 33.
    • Research methods
    • Process of information gathering by National Experts (NEs)
      • 15 technology experts (technology questionnaire)
      • 15 policy experts (policy questionnaire)
      • Questionnaires and harmonised methodology
        • +250 information fields each
        • E.g. for the 1 st and 2 nd public TV broadcaster :
    Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility Access services provided during the previous year (Yes or No) If so, what proportion of the overall programming was available with access services (in %)? If so, what proportion of the programming broadcast in national language was available with subtitles (in %)? Programming with subtitles Programming with sign language interpretation Programming with audiodescription
  • 34.
    • Survey to user’s organisation
      • Consultation to relevant organisations in order to get feedback on each technology category covered by the former questionnaire. ANEC, EDF and AGE
    • Benchmarking
      • Approach based in a Balance Score Card (BSC)
      • Qualitative and Quantitative assessment
    Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 35.
    • Validation processes
      • With National Experts (NE) and National Authorities (NA)
        • NEs: confirming the accuracy of the policy and technology data.
        • NA: contrasting the results as well as gather additional information that may reinforce the national results presented in the Study.
      • Workshops with experts
        • Two Workshops: 2010 and 2011
        • Analysis of main results and feedback from experts
        • Contingency plans
    Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 36. Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) Visit us http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 37. Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) Produce your own dynamic reports through the Balance Score Card: http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/BSC/ European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 38. Study 4. Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010 - 2011) Visit the Benchmarking reports: http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/BSC/ European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 39. Thank you for your attention Roberto Torena Cristóbal Brussels Office Manager [email_address] http://es.linkedin.com/in/robertotorena/en
  • 40. [1] Working Document: Technical Report. Guidance for the application of conformity assessment to European accessibility requirements for public procurement of ICT products and services (2011). CEN/CENELEC/PT, http://www.mandate376.eu/JWG_eAcc_N19-D4-TR_Conformity_Assessment-31-07-2011-final.doc [2] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol (2008). United Nations, http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf [3] Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications (n.d.). United Nations, http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?id=166#E [4] Study on economic assessment for improving eAccessibility services and products (2012). Technosite, Tech4i2, Abilitynet and NOVA, http://www.eaccessibility-impacts.eu [5] Henry, S. L. and Andrew Arch, A. eds. (2010). Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization. W3C, http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/ [6] Accessibility (n.d.). W3C, http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility [7] Essential Components of Web Accessibility (n.d.). W3C, http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.php [8] Technosite (n.d.). http://www.technosite.es/ [9] Introduction to the Screen Reader with Neal Ewers (n.d.). University of Wisconsin-Madison, http://www.doit.wisc.edu/accessibility/video/intro.aspx [10] The WCAG 2.0 Documents (n.d.). W3C, http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20 [11] Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0 (n.d.). W3C, http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html References (1/2) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility
  • 41. [12] Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. W3C Recommendation 11 December 2008 (2008). W3C, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ [13] Understanding Conformance (n.d.). W3C, http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html [14] UWEM, Unified Web Evaluation Methodology version 1.2 (2008). WAB Cluster, http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/ [15] EIAO, European Internet Accessibility Observatory (2008). EIAO, http://www.eiao.net/ [16] eGovMon. eAccessibility (n.d.). eGovMon, http://accessibility.egovmon.no/en/pagecheck/ [17] Web accessibility in European countries: level of compliance with latest international accessibility specifications, notably WCAG 2.0, and approaches or plans to implement those specifications (2009). WRC, empirica, EWORX, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/web_access_compliance/index_en.htm [18] Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2011). Technosite, NOVA, CNIPA, I2BC, The Blank Group and CDLP-NUI, http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/ [19] European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products and Services in the ICT Domain (n.d.). CEN, CENELEC, ETSI, http://www.mandate376.eu/ [20] Draft EN &quot;European accessibility requirements for public procurement of ICT products and services&quot; (2012). CEN, CENELEC, ETSI, http://www.mandate376.eu/EN%20301%20549%20v0034a.doc References (2/2) European initiatives for measuring eAccessibility