European Accessibility Forum Frankfurt, 27 March 2009 Harmonising European Accessibility Guidelines Miguel González-Sancho EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate General « Information Society and Media » Unit H3 – ICT for Inclusion

Context Web accessibility as public concern Socio-political relevance of internet Government involvement on web accessibility Recent developments EU and web accessibility – status EU political awareness Market situation EU and web accessibility – action Rationale and limits of EU action Challenges Past and present EU action

Web accessibility as public concern

Socio-political relevance of internet

Government involvement on web accessibility

Recent developments

EU and web accessibility – status

EU political awareness

Market situation

EU and web accessibility – action

Rationale and limits of EU action

Challenges

Past and present EU action

Context Web accessibility as public concern Socio-political relevance of internet Government involvement on web accessibility Recent developments

Web accessibility as public concern

Socio-political relevance of internet

Government involvement on web accessibility

Recent developments

Socio-political relevance of internet Web accessibility since web exists; become more important Increasing social and individual impact of web, web rights (to information and services) Government involvement: access, skills, services, accessibility…

Web accessibility since web exists; become more important

Increasing social and individual impact of web, web rights (to information and services)

Government involvement: access, skills, services, accessibility…

Government involvement on web accessibility Increasing awareness and commitment by authorities, industry Direct influence and responsibility as public service providers Many countries adopt/ plan measures: diversity of approaches (good), fragmentation (bad); record and risk

Increasing awareness and commitment by authorities, industry

Direct influence and responsibility as public service providers

Many countries adopt/ plan measures: diversity of approaches (good), fragmentation (bad); record and risk

Recent developments UN Convention Draft EU anti-discrimination Directive Court cases (US, UK, Canada…)

UN Convention

Draft EU anti-discrimination Directive

Court cases (US, UK, Canada…)

Context EU and web accessibility – status EU political awareness Market situation

EU and web accessibility – status

EU political awareness

Market situation

EU political awareness Political docs (Commission, Council, EP) on (web) accessibility since early 2000s i2010 initiative on European information society Riga declaration 2006: all PS websites accessible in 2010 Commission Communication 2005, then2008; strong web focus EU Council conclusions next week supports need for common effort, invite Commission recommendation

Political docs (Commission, Council, EP) on (web) accessibility since early 2000s

i2010 initiative on European information society

Riga declaration 2006: all PS websites accessible in 2010

Commission Communication 2005, then2008; strong web focus

EU Council conclusions next week supports need for common effort, invite Commission recommendation

Market situation Poor overall web accessibility performance (5% public sites…) Fragmentation across EU countries: achievements, approaches, specifications Correlation between web accessibility performance and strong policy (legislation but not only)

Poor overall web accessibility performance (5% public sites…)

Fragmentation across EU countries: achievements, approaches, specifications

Correlation between web accessibility performance and strong policy (legislation but not only)

Context EU and web accessibility – action Rationale and limits of EU action Challenges Past and present EU action

EU and web accessibility – action

Rationale and limits of EU action

Challenges

Past and present EU action

Rationale and limits of EU action 9/10 of people consulted wanted in 2007 common approach for no fragmentation (MARKT, rights), certainty EU law ? 1. Users yes (rights view), 2. industry maybe but self-declare (tools and services view), 3. some governments no (notably the most advanced) No EU legal competence on web but possible legal base (MARKT, rights), then procurement legislation

9/10 of people consulted wanted in 2007 common approach for no fragmentation (MARKT, rights), certainty

EU law ? 1. Users yes (rights view), 2. industry maybe but self-declare (tools and services view), 3. some governments no (notably the most advanced)

No EU legal competence on web but possible legal base (MARKT, rights), then procurement legislation

Challenges No result if no legal obligation (negative view) vs. awareness/ encouragement, cultural change (positive) EU legal obligations require in/direct reference to EU standard in principle (none for web yet) and vice-versa Fear of cost, but little evidence on costs and benefits

No result if no legal obligation (negative view) vs. awareness/ encouragement, cultural change (positive)

EU legal obligations require in/direct reference to EU standard in principle (none for web yet) and vice-versa

Fear of cost, but little evidence on costs and benefits

Past and present EU action 2001 COM with annex on WCAG 1.0 (didn’t avoid MS fragmentation) 2005 and 2008 communications consider but not propose legislation Mandate 376 on accessible ICT public procurement, web included

2001 COM with annex on WCAG 1.0 (didn’t avoid MS fragmentation)

2005 and 2008 communications consider but not propose legislation

Mandate 376 on accessible ICT public procurement, web included

Operational aspects Standards and enforcement Value and challenges of standards ICT standards Enforcement of standards Implementation of WCAG 2.0 What to implement? Where and when to implement? How to implement?

Standards and enforcement

Value and challenges of standards

ICT standards

Enforcement of standards

Implementation of WCAG 2.0

What to implement?

Where and when to implement?

How to implement?

Operational aspects Standards and enforcement Value and challenges of standards ICT standards Enforcement of standards

Standards and enforcement

Value and challenges of standards

ICT standards

Enforcement of standards

Value and challenges of standards Positive: less fragmentation, certainty, interoperability economies of scale Negative: standards develop slow (barrier to fast movers?), lower common denominator (barrier to innovation, quality, aesthetics, diversity?) Conformance: declaration vs. certification (self or other party)

Positive: less fragmentation, certainty, interoperability economies of scale

Negative: standards develop slow (barrier to fast movers?), lower common denominator (barrier to innovation, quality, aesthetics, diversity?)

Conformance: declaration vs. certification (self or other party)

ICT standards Standards (stable) but ICT, software, (dynamic); EU debate Web changes (web 2.0): from static (top-down) to dynamic (bottom-up) Direct reference (detailed specs) vs. functional requirements (EU new approach)

Standards (stable) but ICT, software, (dynamic); EU debate

Web changes (web 2.0): from static (top-down) to dynamic (bottom-up)

Direct reference (detailed specs) vs. functional requirements (EU new approach)

Enforcement of standards Standards (= reference) necessary but not sufficient; part of a process (implementation chain) driven by willingness Modularity: 1. Principles, 2. Scope, 3. Prescriptions (legal?), 4. Specifications, 5. Implementation mechanisms Pull/ push mechanisms implementation: incentives (e.g. procurement), sanctions (material, moral)

Standards (= reference) necessary but not sufficient; part of a process (implementation chain) driven by willingness

Modularity: 1. Principles, 2. Scope, 3. Prescriptions (legal?), 4. Specifications, 5. Implementation mechanisms

Pull/ push mechanisms implementation: incentives (e.g. procurement), sanctions (material, moral)

Operational aspects Implementation of WCAG 2.0 What to implement? Where and when to implement? How to implement?

Implementation of WCAG 2.0

What to implement?

Where and when to implement?

How to implement?

What to implement? WCAG 2.0 awaited for long time, so what now? Ongoing discussion (I have more questions than answers…) Vast and complex, flexible (various user needs), evolving, partial (ATAG, UAAG) What common EU approach means, how detailed, how flexible?

WCAG 2.0 awaited for long time, so what now? Ongoing discussion (I have more questions than answers…)

Vast and complex, flexible (various user needs), evolving, partial (ATAG, UAAG)

What common EU approach means, how detailed, how flexible?

Where and when to implement? Scope: only public websites, which ones? Local authorities? Old sites vs. new/ updates ones? Intranets?

Scope: only public websites, which ones? Local authorities?

Old sites vs. new/ updates ones?

Intranets?

How to implement? Mandate 376 to incorporate WCAG 2.0 just like that? Subsidiarity and proportionality, respect diversity, different progress Standstill clause on national standards once EU standard (but 376 only for procurement, supports EU Directive) Quid WCAG 1.0 (or other) legacy and migration costs, what flexibility of implementation (level, time, provider)? Mechanisms of control and enforcement (notification, sanctions) of support and monitoring? Etc...

Mandate 376 to incorporate WCAG 2.0 just like that? Subsidiarity and proportionality, respect diversity, different progress

Standstill clause on national standards once EU standard (but 376 only for procurement, supports EU Directive)

Quid WCAG 1.0 (or other) legacy and migration costs, what flexibility of implementation (level, time, provider)?

Mechanisms of control and enforcement (notification, sanctions) of support and monitoring?

Etc...

Consensus to go somewhere together in Europe with (web) accessibility; we agree to agree, but where to go and how? Guidelines good basis (consensus, inspiration, incentive) but step in the way, not final destination Maybe no final destination, goal is rather making the way together…. common understanding on accessibility process

Consensus to go somewhere together in Europe with (web) accessibility; we agree to agree, but where to go and how?

Guidelines good basis (consensus, inspiration, incentive) but step in the way, not final destination

Maybe no final destination, goal is rather making the way together…. common understanding on accessibility process

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION For more information http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/einclusion/ Remember: online survey on European e-inclusion policy, open until 2 April

For more information

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/einclusion/

Remember: online survey on European e-inclusion policy, open until 2 April