Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
MeAC 2: overall results - presentation at INCOM meeting
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

MeAC 2: overall results - presentation at INCOM meeting

762
views

Published on

“Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe 2010-2011” …

“Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe 2010-2011”
MEAC 2 Study
General presentation on relevant results, specific reports and recommendations for future studies on monitoring eAccessibility

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
762
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The synthetic index of eAccessibility technologies scored in 2011 an average of 41% for all the 13 EU countries analysed as a whole and 48% for the 4 reference non-EU countries. The domains with the highest degree of eAccessibility implementation in these EU Member States are Assistive Technologies , 74%, and incorporation of eAccessibility criteria in public procurement , 52%. Telephony , Computers , Urban Environment and Educational Environment have a medium level of accessibility implementation in EU countries overall (values from 36% to 44%), a lower average than that observed for the non-EU reference countries. The lowest levels of accessibility were registered for Internet , television and home environment technologies. In all these domains, except television, the results of the EU countries were considerably lower than in the non-EU reference countries.
  • There is a broad range of variation in the accessibility status in the EU countries studied, ranging from 23% in Hungary to 57% in the UK . In addition to the UK, the best-placed EU countries are Ireland , Spain , the Netherlands and Italy , with scores ranging between 48% and 54%. Reference countries also show a broad range of variation in their scores, ranging from 32% in Australia to 63% in Canada .
  • The synthetic index of eAccessibility policy yields for all EU countries analysed, 43% , four points lower than the score for the non-EU reference countries. The domains in which there is a greater degree of implementation of eAccessibility policy in EU countries are assistive technology, provision of reasonable accommodation in employment , enforcement of public policy , accessibility to Internet , incorporation of eAccessibility criteria in public procurement and ensuring non-discrimination in access to technology . All these domains scored above average. The telephony accessibility policy has a medium level of development, at 41%, two points lower than the eAccessibility policy average. Other aspects, such as computer accessibility , home , urban and educational environment , and television accessibility are less developed, and scored below average.
  • Spain , USA and UK are the countries with the highest scores . At the other end of the scale, countries such as Ireland , Italy and Greece , have surprisingly low scores .
  • This radar chart shows the differences between eAccessibility status and level of implementation of eAccessibility policy in each of the countries analyzed The level of implementation of eAccessibility policy is higher than the eAccessibility status in Czech Republic, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the UK and USA . The eAccessibility status is higher than the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy in Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway . In the rest of countries there are no significant differences between the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy and the eAccessibility status
  • This radar chart shows the differences between eAccessibility status and level of implementation of eAccessibility policy in each of the technologies analyzed The level of implementation of eAccessibility policy is higher than the eAccessibility status in Internet . The eAccessibility status is higher than the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy in Computers and Assistive Technologies . In the rest of technology domains there are no significant differences between the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy and the eAccessibility status
  • Maintain a Balanced Score Card (BSC) to store and exploit the results. Foster research in the field – data can be constructed dynamically and downloaded. Ensure the accessibility of online questionnaires for experts and users organisations. Participation of experts with disability . Translate the survey for the users ’ organisations to national languages. Encourage participation and better rate of response.
  • Interaction with actors Web accessibility assessment centralised in an organisation and just punctual interaction with actors. Consistency of the results . Enhance and promote the figure of national expert (paid). The number of participating experts from each country be increased (team). Motivated and expert team . Ensure the collaboration of EDF, AGE and ANEC . Successful data gathering.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Study on Monitoring eAccesibility in Europe Meeting on e-accessibility studies, 16 April 2010 Jose Angel Martinez Usero Project Coordinator INCOM Meeting: Thursday, 27 October 2011 Dr. José Angel Martínez Usero Coordinator of MEAC 2 Study “ Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe 2010-2011” MEAC 2 Study
    • 2.
      • Background and policy context
      • Objectives
      • Scope of the study
      • Research methods
      • Main outcomes
      • Global status of eAccessibility technologies and policies
      • Recommendations for future studies
      Contents
    • 3. Monitoring eAccessibility http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu
    • 4.
      • The 2006 “ Riga Declaration ” on ICT for an inclusive information
      • MeAC 1. 2007-2008
      • MeAC 2. Study on Monitoring eAccessibility” 2010 – 2011
      • MeAC 3. 2012
      Background and policy context
    • 5.
      • Monitor the status and progress made in eAccessibility in a series of selected countries
      • Identify the best practices in the fields of legislation, policies and actions .
      • Draw up two annual reports , which include comparisons by country and over time.
      • Develop a tool , for gathering and exploiting the data.
      • Establish a direct and regular relationship with the relevant actors.
      • Define, develop and apply a benchmarking framework.
      Objectives
    • 6. Scope
      • Selection of 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 United Kingdom.
        • Reference Non-EU countries : United States, Australia and Canada.
        • Countries participating in a voluntary basis : Norway, Greece
      • Period of analysis : 2010-2011
    • 7. Selection of technologies to be monitored DEVICES/SERVICES MeAC/NEW TELEPHONY: Fixed MeAC Mobile MeAC Special telephones (text and videotelephone) MeAC Mobile Web New INTERNET: Web MeAC COMPUTERS: Software MeAC Hardware MeAC MEDIA: Analogue television MeAC Digital television European Commission HOMES: Digital homes European Commission Telecare New URBAN ENVIRONMENT: ATMs MeAC Vending machines MeAC Virtual kiosks European Commission Digital information panels New EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT: Electronic books MeAC proposal Elearning platforms New ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Hardware MeAC proposal Software MeAC proposal
    • 8.
      • Process of information gathering by National Experts (NEs)
      • National Experts are the key of our study and the most valuable intangible asset.
        • 15 technology experts (technology questionnaire)
        • 15 policy experts (policy questionnaire)
        • Online questionnaires with +250 information fields each one
      • Two years : 2010-2011
      • Questionnaires and harmonised methodology to gather info
      • Help desk by mailing lists
      • Accessible online form for data filling
      Research methods
    • 9. Survey to user’s organisation Consultation to relevant organisations in order to get feedback on each technology category. Cooperation with ANEC, EDF and AGE Benchmarking Approach based in BSC and hypothesis Research methods
    • 10. Validation processes
        • With National Experts: to confirm the accuracy of the policy and technology data.
      • With National Authorities: to contrast the results as well as gather additional information at national level.
      • Workshops with experts
        • Two Workshops: 2010 and 2011
        • Analysis of main results and feedback from experts
        • Contingency plans
    • 11. Study main outcomes http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/BSC/
    • 12. BSC perspectives
    • 13.
      • The Balanced Score Card (BSC) Tool allows producing:
        • Automatic reports from the technology indicators or policy indicators:
          • Technology status.
          • Policy implementation.
        • Automatic reports combining technology and policy categories:
          • Technology status vs. Policy implementation.
        • Reports and views à la carte filtering by year, technology and countries, in order to monitor the progress in eAccessibility:
          • Technology indicators dynamic report.
          • Policy indicators dynamic report.
      BSC outcomes
    • 14. Automatic reports From the technology or policy indicators.
    • 15. Automatic reports Combining technology and policy indicators
    • 16. Dynamic reports
      • Step 1: Chose the view
        • year,
        • technology or policy,
        • countries
    • 17. Dynamic reports Step 2: Chose the category/ies, countries and years
    • 18. Dynamic reports Step 3. Get the dynamic table and rotate
    • 19. Benchmarking reports
      • Scientific hypothesis on themes of interest
      • Sophisticated comparisons combining
        • Policy and technology indicators
        • Quantitative and qualitative indicators
      • And establishing a set of ranges to define
        • Low implementation
        • Average implementation
        • High implementation
    • 20. Benchmarking reports
      • Benchmarking approach addressing effectiveness/efficiency of legislative implementation mechanisms and their impact in the level of accessibility.
      • Explore the correlation between certain policies and their effects on the level of accessibility achieved in different technology areas.
      • Each benchmarking report includes a number of variables and is based on a number of underlying hypotheses .
    • 21. Benchmarking reports - example
    • 22. Alerts
      • list of alerts with political and technological indicators , aimed to indicate the situation concerning both areas (technology and policy).
      • The traffic light colours indicate the overall progress for each of the indicators. These correspond to the following indicator values:
        • Red (low implementation): 0 to 33.33%.
        • Amber (moderate implementation ): Between 33.34% and 66.66%
        • Green (high implementation): 66.67% or higher.
    • 23. Specific reports
    • 24. Report on implementation of eAccessibility articles of European Directives into National Legislation – special care on Telecom Package
      • To analyse how eAccessibility articles of EU Directives have been transposed , implemented and interpreted in a series of Member States .
      • To obtain detailed information about present situation on the implementation of EU provisions on eAccessibility, and plans for incorporating new provisions .
      • To detect national good practices in the implementation of European legislation on eAccessibility.
    • 25.
      • Methodology : information gathering is based on a specific questionnaire provided to the Policy Experts
      • Directives and articles analysed :
        • Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Art 8.2 and 8.4)
        • Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and user’s rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Services Directive) (Art 1, 6.1, 7 and 9.2, 11.2, 25.2, 26, 31.1, 33,1)
        • Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment and occupation (Art. 5)
        • Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright (Art 5.3)
        • Directive 2004/18/EC on awarding of public contracts (Art 23.1)
        • Directive 2007/65/EC on audiovisual media services (Art 3c)
        • Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC on public procurement (Art 34.1)
      Report on implementation of eAccessibility articles of European Directives into National Legislation – special care on Telecom Package
    • 26.
      • Outcome:
      • comparison table by country regarding how such transposition has occurred, name and articles of national law which incorporate EU provisions and the way this law affects eAccessibility.
        • Strength of implementation
        • National legislation
        • Type of legislation
        • Specific articles in national legislation
        • Specific measures implemented
        • Plans to transpose new provisions
      Report on implementation of eAccessibility articles of European Directives into National Legislation – special care on Telecom Package
    • 27. Global status of eAccessibility technologies in EU and non-EU countries. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
    • 28. Global status of eAccessibility technologies, by country. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
    • 29. Status of eAccessibility policy in EU and non-EU countries. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
    • 30. Status of eAccessibility policy, by country. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
    • 31. Correspondence between eAccessibility level and policy implementation in the countries analysed. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
    • 32. Correspondence between eAccessibility level and policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
    • 33. Recommendations for methods
      • Scope of the study:
        • Countries: all EU Member States be included in the study, and that the sample of non-EU reference countries also be enlarged;
        • Technologies : maintain those included in MeAC 1 and MeAC 2, and add new emerging technologies: Web 2.0, Cloud based platform, Augmented reality, IPTV, NFC technologies, …
      • Indicators:
        • In the short term : maintain most of indicators and formulas applied.
        • In the medium term : weigh some indicators and add new emerging technologies.
        • In the medium term : proceed to a validation of indicators and methods with relevant experts.
    • 34. Recommendations for tools
      • Technological tools:
        • Maintain a Balanced Score Card (BSC) to store and exploit the results.
      • Online questionnaires:
        • Translate the survey for the users ’ organisations to national languages.
    • 35. Recommendations for interaction with actors
        • Web accessibility assessment centralised in an organisation and just punctual interaction with actors.
        • Enhance and promote the figure of national expert (paid). The number of participating experts from each country should be increased (team).
        • Ensure the collaboration of EDF, AGE and ANEC for gathering information from real users.
    • 36. Thanks for your attention Dr. Jose Angel Martínez Usero [email_address]