Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe: 2010 Annual Report

noiseboliviaΑσφάλεια

5 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

636 εμφανίσεις










Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe is a
study led by Technosite in partnership with
NOVA and CNIPA, in collaboration with
I2BC, The Blanck
Group

and CDLP
-
NUI
, for
the European
Commission, DG Information
Society and Media, Unit H.3 'ICT for
inclusion'. The views expressed in the
study do not reflect the official position of
the European Commission.




Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe: 2010
Annual Report

10
th

June

20
11

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



2

Disclaimer

The study has been commissioned by the European Commission,
Directorate General for Information Society and Media, unit ICT for
Inclusion. All views expressed in this document, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views o
f the
European Commission.

Neither the European Commission nor
any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the information
contained in the present publication.

The European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in the present publication.

© European

Union, 2011


This document is available at:
http://www.eaccessibility
-
monitoring.eu/researchResult.aspx



Rights Restrictions

Reproduction is authorized provided the source is ack
nowledged


Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



3

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Executive summary

12

1

Introduction

27

1.1

The
challenge of eAccessibility

27

1.2

Policy background and market drivers

29

1.3

Approach and methodology of the study "Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe (2010
-
2011)"

32

1.4

Structure of the report and accompanying documents

39

2

The eAccessibility environment: social regulation in a global market

42

2.1

Globalisation of the market and social regulation

44

2.2

Main legislative developme
nts related to eAccessibility

51

2.3

Activities related to the implementation and follow
-
up of relevant legislation

79

2.4

Concluding remarks

91

3

The actual level of eAccessibility

93

3.1

eAccessibility status

93

3.2

Policy implementation

209

4

Comparative analysis: Main findings

271

4.1

The impact of eAccessibility policy on the actual level of eAccessibility

271

4.2

Comparison of the actual level eAccessibility and policy implementation

293

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



4

5

Conclusions

308

6

References

313

7

Annex I: Methodology

325

8

Annex II: Main national market players identified

346

9

Annex III: Questionnaire to national expert for analysis of eAccessibility in technology aspects

387

9

Annex IV: Questionnaire to national experts for analysis of eAccessibility law and policy in Europe.

459

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



5


LIST OF TABLES


Table 1. List of acronyms

................................
................................
................................
................................
.............................

8

Table 2. eAccessibiliy Status and Policy status

................................
................................
................................
..............................

26

Table 3. Classification of the categories of products and services analysed

................................
................................
.......................

37

Table 4. Status of telephony accessibility

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

97

Table 5. Status of fixed telephony accessibility

................................
................................
................................
...........................

101

Table 6. Status of mobile telephony accessibility

................................
................................
................................
........................

106

Table 7. Status of accessibility of special
telephones

................................
................................
................................
...................

110

Table 8. Status of mobile Web accessibility

................................
................................
................................
................................

113

Table 9. Status of Internet accessibility (Web content)

................................
................................
................................
................

117

Table 10.
Technology status of Web content


Governmental websites

................................
................................
..........................

122

Table 11. Technology status of private and sector specific websites

................................
................................
..............................

127

Table 12. Status of computers accessibility

................................
................................
................................
................................

130

Table 13. Status of computers accessibility (desktop and laptop)

................................
................................
................................
..

132

Table 14.
Status of computers accessibility (software applications)

................................
................................
...............................

135

Table 15. Status of computer peripherals accessibility

................................
................................
................................
.................

138

Table 16. Status of television accessibility

................................
................................
................................
................................
.

141

Table 17. Status of television content accessibility

................................
................................
................................
......................

144

Table 18. Status of TV content
accessibility (public broadcasters)


................................
................................
...............................

148

Table 19. Status of TV content accessibility (Commercial broadcasters)

................................
................................
.........................

152

Table 20. Status of digital TV equipment accessibility

................................
................................
................................
..................

156

Table 21. Status of home environment accessibility

................................
................................
................................
....................

160

Table 22. Status of digital
homes accessibility

................................
................................
................................
............................

163

Table 23. Status of telecare accessibility

................................
................................
................................
................................
...

167

Table 24. Status of
Urban environment

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

170

Table 25. Status of
ATM accessibility

................................
................................
................................
................................
.........

174

Table 26. Status of vending machine accessibility

................................
................................
................................
.......................

177

Table 27. Status of virtual kiosk accessibility

................................
................................
................................
..............................

181

Table
28. Status of public announcement systems accessibility

................................
................................
................................
....

184

Table 29. Status of educational environment accessibility

................................
................................
................................
............

187

Table 30. Status of electronic books accessibility

................................
................................
................................
........................

190

Table 31. Status of eLearning platform accessibility

................................
................................
................................
....................

193

Table 32. Status of assistive technologies

................................
................................
................................
................................
..

196

Table 33. Status of assistive technologies (hardware)

................................
................................
................................
.................

199

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



6

Table 34. Status of assistive technologies (software)

................................
................................
................................
..................

202

Table 35. Status of incorporating accessibility criteria in public procurement

................................
................................
..................

205

Table 36. Global sta
tus of eAccessibility technologies

................................
................................
................................
..................

208

Table 37. Background information

................................
................................
................................
................................
............

212

Table 38. Status of telephony accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
........................

218

Table 39. Status of Internet accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
..........................

224

Table 40. Status of computers accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
.......................

228

Table 41. Status of television accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
........................

234

Table 42. Status of home environment accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
...........

237

Table 43. Status of urban environment accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
...........

242

Table 44. Status of educational environment accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
...

246

Table 45. Status of the assi
stive technologies accessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
..

250

Table 46. Status of public procurement accessibility policy in EU and non
-
EU countries

................................
................................
...

255

Table 47. Status of non
-
discrimination on eAccessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
.....

259

Table 48. Status of eAccessibility in employment policy

................................
................................
................................
...............

262

Table 49. Enforcement of public policy

................................
................................
................................
................................
......

267

Table 50. Status of eAccessibility policy

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

270

Table 51. eAccessibility Status and Policy status

................................
................................
................................
.........................

307

Table 52. Indicator for country selection

................................
................................
................................
................................
....

325

Table 53. Governmental and private and sector
-
specific website
s
analysed

table

................................
................................
............

332

Table 54. Example of quantification of aggregated results

................................
................................
................................
............

345

Table 55. Top 2 landline telephony operators

................................
................................
................................
.............................

346

Table 56. Top 2 mobile telephony operators

................................
................................
................................
...............................

347

Table 57. Main national text and video telephone distributors

................................
................................
................................
......

348

Table 58. Main national text and video relay service providers

................................
................................
................................
.....

349

Table 59. Governmental websites

................................
................................
................................
................................
.............

350

Table 60. Private and sector
-
specific websites

................................
................................
................................
............................

356

Table 61. Top 3 national computer manufacturers

................................
................................
................................
......................

362

Table 62. Top 3 national OS developers

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

363

Table 63. Top 3 national software developers

................................
................................
................................
.............................

364

Table 64. Top 3 national peripheral manufacturers

................................
................................
................................
.....................

365

Table 65. Top 2 national public broadcasters

................................
................................
................................
..............................

366

Table 66. Top 2 national commercial broadcasters

................................
................................
................................
......................

367

Table 67. Top 2 national DTV equipment retai
lers

................................
................................
................................
.......................

368

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



7

Table 68. Top 3 national home appliance manufacturers

................................
................................
................................
..............

369

Table 69. Top 3 national domotic network installers

................................
................................
................................
....................

370

Table 70.
Top 2 national telecare service providers

................................
................................
................................
.....................

371

Table 71. Top 2 national telecare devices manufacturers

................................
................................
................................
.............

372

Table 72. Top 2 national retail banks

................................
................................
................................
................................
........

373

Table 73. Top 2 national vending machine manufacturers

................................
................................
................................
............

374

Table 74. Top 2 national transportation companies

................................
................................
................................
.....................

375

Table 75. Main national busiest bus station, train station and airport

................................
................................
............................

376

Table 76. Top 2 national public electronic libraries

................................
................................
................................
......................

377

Table 77. Top 2 national libraries for disabled people

................................
................................
................................
..................

378

Table 78. Top 2 national eBook reader manufacturers

................................
................................
................................
.................

379

Table 79. Top 2 national universities

................................
................................
................................
................................
.........

380

Table 80. Top 2 national eLearning education providers

................................
................................
................................
...............

381

Table 81. Main national hard
ware and software databases

................................
................................
................................
...........

382

Table 82. Main national databases for Hearing aids, Braille displays, AAC systems

................................
................................
..........

383

Table 83. Main national databases for Screen readers, Screen magnifiers, Voice recognition software and AAC software

.....................

385


Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



8

Table
1
.
List of
acronyms

Acronym

Explanation

AAL

Ambient Assisted Living

AAL JP

Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme

AIS

Accessible

Information Solutions

AT

Assistive Technologies

ATM

Automated teller machine

BEREC

Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications

BSC

Balanced Score Card

BTWG

Technical Board Working Group

CDLP

Centre for Disability Law & Policy

CEN

The European Committee for
Standardisation

CENELEC

The European Committee for Electrotechnical
Standardisation

CESCR

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

CNIPA

Centro Nazionale per l'Informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione

CRPD

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CSS

Cascading
Style Sheets

CTIC Found.

Center for the Development of Information and Communication

DAISY

Digital Accessible Information System

DG

Directorate General

DPOs

Disabled people’s
organisations

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



9

Acronym

Explanation

DTV

Digital Television

EC

European Commission

ECHR

European Convention on Human Rights

EDeAN

European Design for All e
-
Accessibility Network

EEA

European Economic Area

EFC

European Foundation Centre

EFTA

European Free Trade Association

EICTA

Information and Communications Technology and Consumer
Electronics Industry in Europe

EPG

Electronic Programme Guide

ETSI

European Telecommunications Standards Institute

EU

European Union

EU
-
SILC

EU
-
Survey on Income and Living Conditions

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

G3ict

Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communication
Technologies

GDP

Gross domestic product

HTML

HyperText Markup Language

ICT

Information and Communication Technologies

IDA

International Disability Alliance

IDI

ICT Development Index

IMSERSO

Instituto de Mayores y Servicios Sociales

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



10

Acronym

Explanation

IPTV

Internet Protocol
Television

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

LFS

Linux From Scratch

MeAC

Measuring Progress of eAccessibility

NFTH

Nordic Forum for
Telecommunication and Disability

NGO

Non Governmental
Organisation

NIST

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NRI

Networked Readiness Index

NUH

Nordic Development Centre for Rehabilitation Technology

OECD

Organisation for Economic
Co
-
operation and Development

PDA

Personal digital assistant

PDF

Portable
Document
Format

R&D

Research and Development

SDO

Standards
organisation

STAKES

Nordic Council of Ministers and is situated in Helsinki

TAP

Telematics Applications Research and
Development Programme

TAW

Web Accessibility Test

TEITAC

Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology
Advisory Committee

TEP

Transatlantic Economic Partnership

TIDE

Technology Initiative for Disabled and Elderly persons

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



11

Acronym

Explanation

UK

United
Kingdom

UN

United Nations

URL

Uniform resource locator

US

United States

W3C

World Wide Web Consortium

WAI

Web Accessibility Initiative

WCAG

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

WebCT

Web Course Tools

WHO

World Health
Organisation




Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



12

Executive
summary

Recent developments in European Union (EU) policies have
increasingly acknowledged that inclusive Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) and Assistive Technologies
(AT) are essential to ensuring full participation in society for
many of the popul
ation segments at risk of digital exclusion,
notably people with disabilities and senior citizens. Inclusive ICT
allow people to fully participate in the Information Society by
helping to eliminate the barriers they may face in their daily
lives.

However,

despite the policies implemented over the last
decade, the overall level of eAccessibility remains quite low.
According to research conducted in 2010, and looking at efforts
made and outcomes obtained (for instance as shown in the Riga
Dashboard results),

eAccessibility scored worse than other
eInclusion support measures adopted in 2010. The evidence
gathered demonstrates how people with disabilities in Europe
still face many barriers in their everyday usage of ICT products
and services, the core elements
that facilitate access to
economic and social life. Data reveal how the lack of
eAccessibility in technology domains such as public websites,
digital television, public terminals and telephone access to
emergency services persists in many E
U

countries.

Thi
s study aims to contribute to EU eAccessibility policy
development and implementation by providing useful
information about the variety of approaches and practices
across different countries. Furthermore, the report looks at
other relevant aspects such as
end
-
users’ interests, market
drivers and main competitors in each technology. Its main
objectives are to:



Monitor the eAccessibility status and progress made in
the selected countries (certain EU Member States and
third countries);



Identify best practices
in fields such as legislation,
policies and practices;



Ensure direct and active interaction among the relevant
actors currently involved in the implementation and
assessment of eAccessibility;



Define, develop and apply a comparative analysis
framework in
tended to monitor progress made in
eAccessibility over time and across countries.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



13

Building on existing studies and reports, this annual report
presents relevant and updated information on developments
directly and indirectly linked to eAccessibility: curre
nt
eAccessibility level, legislation and legislative developments
related to eAccessibility, implementation of activities related to
such legislation, non
-
legislative developments summarised into
trends and drivers, as well as
-
non
-
legislative activities.

T
he eAccessibility environment

Strong EU engagement with disability issues over the past
decade has opened up a wider and more multifaceted
understanding of what regulatory social policy involves, and
through this, what can also be fruitfully regarded as d
isability
policy. Regulatory social policy is a natural part of, or at least
compatible with, general market regulation and an area in
which the EU can claim legal competence. Depending on the
particular foundation and profile of each country’s disability
policy, recent EU regulatory policy has also, in many cases,
introduced new ways of thinking about disability and how it can
be diminished.

On the other hand, reforms on EU social regulations to enhance
eAccessibility have not been aligned with national de
velopments
in this respect. While some E
U

countries have been a step
ahead of EU policy developments, most European

Union

countries have only amended their domestic policies following
several discussions and the adoption of new EU directives and
recommenda
tions. National policymakers usually look at policy
adoptions made in other countries as a benchmark for future
domestic developments
.


There are, however, differing opinions among the Member
States regarding the adoption of new and binding legal
obligatio
ns in accessibility for the public and/or private sectors.
While some European business associations have recognised
the need for a more
harmonise
d and coordinated approach,
including legally binding standards within the internal market,
public consultatio
ns have identified a reluctance to adopt
binding legislation among public authorities in several Member
States and the industry. While the EU business community
believes it would be helpful to have the same level of protection
against discrimination in all

EU Member States, it also fears
increasing red tape and costs if EU policymakers adopt more
legal obligations for the sector.

Many E
U

countries now work to reconcile their social protection
policies and find the right balance between economic freedom
Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



14

and

avoiding social inequality, thereby stimulating economic
growth and employment, while at the same time ensuring that
all the population is able to participate in society, enabling
citizens to be active, live independently and avoid social
exclusion.

So fa
r, European governments have demonstrated asymmetric
interest in using the full potential of existing EU accessibility
provisions and in introducing new ones. Two of the main
challenges for Member States are:



finding solutions to the recurring fear that ac
cessibility
costs would lead to a greater burden for business and
individual employers;



ensuring the effective and consistent enforcement of
existing legal accessibility regulations.

Future EU social regulations depend on the close collaboration
of Member

States’ social institutions as well as the efforts of
political and economic actors and drivers in encouraging the
adoption of new regulations and deregulation.

Arguably, the European Union needs a more coherent, common
and effective approach to accessib
ility if fundamental targets
are to be reached. Although the EU ‘
acquits
’ of legislative and
other measures to promote accessibility has expanded over the
past ten years, only a limited subset of the entire spectrum of
sectors in society are currently cove
red and these often only to
a limited extent. There are also underexploited opportunities
under existing EU legislation (e.g. in public procurement and
the use of structural funds).

Any rational response to the ageing population in Europe must
entail prov
iding more opportunities for older citizens


which
includes a substantial and growing number of people with
disabilities


to participate in the market as consumers and
workers and to live independently. The market should be ready
for demographic changes
and the arising needs of the growing
number of older and disabled citizens.

This yields a threefold policy prescription:

-

Re
-
engineering of disability protection services and
programmes to enable freedom of choice,
independent living and participation in
mainstream
society;

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



15

-

Enactment of non
-
discrimination law and policy to
prevent discriminatory attitudes, behaviour and
stereotypes in both the public and private sectors;

-

Use of market regulation tools to create more space
for diversity among people, includ
ing people with
disabilities.

Increased life expectancy and ageing of the population require
Member States to reconsider their policies to enable people with
disabilities to live independently and be active citizens for as
long as possible. The United Nations Convention on the Rights
o
f Persons with Disabilities encourages the European Union and
its Member States to continue their efforts to advance in
accessibility for people with disabilities. It is reasonable to
assume that this will be beneficial to large segments of the
population.

During their lifetimes an increasing number of
people are likely to experience impairments. Both for ethical
and economic reasons this issue should continue to be
addressed and be given attention at both national and EU
levels. International co
-
operation
must also be ensured in this
respect.


The methodology of this
study

The information on technology and policies gathered in this
study was collected
in 2010
by the national technology and
policy experts in
12

EU Member States
, 3 reference
countries
(Unite
d States of America, Canada and Australia) and 2
countries participating in a voluntary basis (Greece and
Norway).

The indicators used to build the synthetic indexes are made up
of one or several components that, in turn, have been
calculated from the dir
ect questions of the technology and
policy questionnaire and transformed into a scale ranging from
0 to 100
to allow comparison between countries, with indicators
of other categories
analysed

as well as between technology and
policy indicators.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



16

eAccessibi
lity status
1

The synthetic index of eAccessibility technologies, based on the
results obtained in this study, scored an average of 40% for all
the 13 EU countries analysed as a whole. The domains with the
highest degree of eAccessibility implementation in
these EU
Member States are Assistive Technologies (AT)
-

73%
-

and
incorporation of eAccessibility criteria in public procurement,
53%.

Telephony, Internet,
Computers
, Urban Environment

and
E
ducational
E
nvironment have a medium level of accessibility
implementation in EU countries overall (values from 3
4
% to
43
%), a lower average than that observed for the non
-
EU
reference countries.

The lowest levels of accessibility were registered in television,
home environment, and urban environment technologies.
In all
these domains, except television, the results of the EU countries
were considerably lower than in the non
-
EU reference countries.




1

The
full analysis of the eAccessibility status in each category by country is
provided in section
3.1

eAccessibility status
.


Figure
1
. Global status of eAccessibility technologies in
EU and non
-
EU countries

40
43
34
37
33
20
35
34
73
53
48
50
39
46
30
35
47
51
82
41
GLOBAL STATUS OF EACCESSIBITLY
Telephony
Internet
Computers
Television
Home environment
Urban environment
Educational environment
Assistive technologies
Public procurement
EU countries
Non
-
EU countries
Source: Ow
n elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Percentages

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



17

Figure
2
. Global status of eAccessibility technologies, by
country

42
40
35
39
37
40
31
26
46
48
35
52
34
52
47
48
32
63
52
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
GRAND TOTAL
TOTAL EU COUNTRIES
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
TOTAL NON
-
EU COUNTRIES
Australia
Canada
Norway
United States of America
Source: Own elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Percentages

There is a broad range of variation in the accessibility status in
the EU

countries studied, ranging from 26% in Hungary to 52%
in the Netherlands and Spain. In addition to the Netherlands

and Spain
, the best
-
placed
EU countries

are Italy, Ireland and
the United Kingdom, with scores ranging between 46% and
47%. Reference countr
ies also have a broad range of variation
in their scores, ranging from 32% in Australia to 6
3
% in
Canada.

eAccessibility policy
2

The synthetic index of eAccessibility policy, constructed from
the results obtained in this study yields, for all EU countries
analysed, 4
2
%, almost the same score as for the synthetic
index of eAccessibility technologies.

As shown by the results obtained, 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.




2

The full analysis of the eAccessibility policy status in each category by country
is provided in section,
3.2
.

Policy implementation
.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



18

The telephony accessibility policy has a medium level of
development, scoring 39%, two points lower than the
eAccessibility policy average.

Other aspects, such as computer accessibility, digital homes,
urban and ed
ucational 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 Italy, Greece and
Denmark, have surprisingly lo
w scores.

Figure
3
. Status of eAccessibility policy in EU and non
-
EU
countries

41
39
49
17
33
18
34
37
61
47
48
61
47
46
52
38
12
41
27
51
41
57
70
63
52
41
E
-
ACCESSIBILITY POLICY
Telephony
Internet
Computers
Television
Home environment
Urban environment
Educational environment
Assistive technologies
Public procurement
Non
-
Discrimination
Employment
Enforcement of public policy
EU countries
Non EU countries

Source: Own elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Percentages



Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



19

Figure
4
. Status of eAccessibility policy, by country

42
41
43
26
35
39
20
40
37
26
47
69
45
45
61
46
34
49
39
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
GRAND TOTAL
TOTAL EU COUNTRIES
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
TOTAL NON
-
EU COUNTRIES
Australia
Canada
Norway
United States of America
Source: Own
elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Percentages


Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the
degree of eAccessibility policy implementation
3

As expected, there is, in general, a correlation between the
level of implementation of eAccessibility policy and the degree
of eAccessibility achieved in a given country, that is, the greater
the implementation of eAccessibility policies in a country, the

higher the level of eAccessibility achieved.

Considering the aggregate EU average indexes for all
technologies analysed, the level of eAccessibility and the degree
of policy implementation, reach 40% and 41% respectively,
which means that the level is me
dium (between of 33% and
66%).

Results show several differences when looking at a specific
country. The correlation between policy and technology
implementation seems to be lower in Hungary, where there is a
medium level of eAccessibility policy implementa
tion but
technology implementation is still low. In Spain there is also a



3

The full analysis of the c
orrespondence between eAccessibility level and the
degree of eAccessibility policy implementation
in each category by country is
provided in section, 3

The actual level of eAccessibility.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



20

difference between both levels, although it is noteworthy that in
both cases, level of implementation scores are among the
highest. Another remarkable exception is Italy, where the
r
esults in the level of eAccessibility are high despite the low
level registered in the implementation of accessibility policies.

In conclusion, countries such as Italy, Spain, United Kingdom,
the Netherlands and Ireland have achieved a degree of
eAccessibi
lity above the EU average, whereas Greece or
Hungary have achieved the lowest levels.

Compared with the non
-
EU countries included in the survey, the
eAccessibility level and the degree of policy implementation is
lower in EU countries than in third countri
es, where both
indexes reach 46% and 48%, with particular emphasis on
Canada (for its high level of technological implementation) and
the USA (for its high political implementation).

Figure
5
. eAccessibility level and degree of
eAc
cessibility

policy implementation, by country

42
41
43
26
35
39
20
40
37
26
47
69
45
45
61
46
34
49
39
60
42
40
35
39
37
40
31
26
46
48
35
52
34
52
47
48
32
63
52
45
0
20
40
60
80
100
GRAND TOTAL
TOTAL EU COUNTRIES
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
TOTAL NON
-
EU COUNTRIES
Australia
Canada
Norway
United States of America
Status of eAccessibility Policy
eAccessibility status
Source: Own elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Percentages

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



21

Figure
6
. Correspondence between eAccessibility level
and the degree of
eAccessibility

policy implementation in
the countries
analysed

0
20
40
60
80
100
CZ
DK
FR
DE
GR
HU
IE
IT
PT
ES
SE
NL
UK
AU
CA
NO
US
eAccessibility policy implementation level
eAccessibility status
Source: Own elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Percentages

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



22

Figure
7
.

Relationship between the eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility

policy implementation

CZ
DK
FR
DE
GR
HU
IE
IT
PT
ES
SE
NL
UK
AU
CA
NO
US
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
eAccessibility status
eAccessibility policy implementation level
Trendline
(EU countries)

Source: Own elaboration, 2010.


Unit:
Percentages

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



23

When the analysis focuses on the different technologies covered
in the evaluation, there is a clear trend in the sense that the
greater the degree of implementation of eAccessibility policy,
the greater the level of
accessibility achieved in each
technology domain.

However, at EU level, there is a significant deviation from the
general trend in some technological domains such as
Computers
, Assistive technologies and Public procurement,
where the level of accessibility

is higher than expected given
the degree of implementation of accessibility policies in this
field. On the contrary, Internet presents the opposite case.

Only Telephony, Internet,
Computers
,
Urban Environment,
Educational
E
nvironment and Public procuremen
t reach a
medium level of eAccessibility level (33%
-
66%),
and Assistive
technologies (73%) that reaches a high level,
while the rest of
domains show low implementation.

The domains with a degree of eAccessibility higher than the EU
global status (40%) are

Assistive technologies (73%) and Public
procurement (53%); while Internet (34%),
Computers

(37%),
Television (33%), Home (20%), Urban environment (3
5
%) and
Educational Environment (34%) are lower.

The following figures show the status of each domain at EU

level for eAccessibility and policy implementation, as well as the
relationship between them.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



24

Figure
8
. eAccessibility status and eAccessibility policy
implementation level in EU countries, by technology

40
43
34
37
33
20
35
34
73
53
41
39
49
17
33
18
34
37
61
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
GLOBAL
Telephony
Internet
Computers
Television
Home environment
Urban environment
Educational environment
Assistive technologies
Public procurement
eAccessibility status
eAccessibility policy implementation level
Source: Own elaboration,

2010.


Unit: Percentages

Figure
9
. Correspondence between eAccessibility level
and the degree of
eAccessibility

policy implementation in
the technological domains
analysed
. EU countries.

0
20
40
60
80
100
Telephony
Internet
Computers
Television
Home
environment
Urban
environment
Educational
environment
Assistive
technologies
Public
procurement
eAccessibility status
eAccessibility policy implementation level
Source: Own elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Perc
entages

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



25

Figure
10
. Relationship between eAccessibility level and degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in EU countries, by
technology

Telephony
Internet
Computers
Television
Home environment
Urban environment
Educational environment
Assistive technologies
Public procurement
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
eAccessibility status
eAccessibility policy implementation level
Trendline
(EU countries)

Source: Own elaboration, 2010.


Unit: Percentages

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



26

Table
2
. eAccessibiliy Status and Policy status



TOTAL


EU
COUNTRIES


Czech
Republic


Denmark


France


Germany


Greece


Hungary


Ireland


Italy


Portugal


Spain


Sweden


The
Netherlands


United
Kingdom


NON
-
EU
COUNTRIES


Australia


Canada


Norway


USA

EACCESSIBILITY STATUS









































Telephony

44

43

29

53

50

40

18

42

44

51

44

50

27

46

55

50

46

58

44

53

Internet

35

34

47

47

17

40

41

24

23

25

22

55

17

31

49

39

36

51

45

24

Computers

39

37

19

29

22

41

45

12

81

33

8

38

25

53

62

46

16

96

35

70

Television

32

33

35

25

34

25

26

36

27

41

22

39

25

39

52

30

30

35

29

25

Home environment

23

20

10

5

35

20

42

5

11

28

9

61

5



12

35

11

51

81

5

Urban environment

37

35

39

41

22

21

17

25

26

36

39

40

39

47

55

47

35

76

45

40

Educational environment

38

34

23

20

17

43

9

41

60

63

41

26

37

40

20

51

13

79

94

19

Assistive technologies

75

73

55

75

84

74

63

33

88

85

78

89

84

78

61

82

84

80

73

91

Public procurement

50

53

56

56

56

56

19

19

56

69

56

69

44

81

56

41

19

44

19

81

TOTAL

42

40

35

39

37

40

31

26

46

48

35

52

34

52

47

48

32

63

52

45

POLICY STATUS









































Telephony

42

39

44

52

49

28

27

30

40

17

47

57

44

24

51

52

54

46

42

65

Internet

47

49

65

37

38

51

16

52

40

51

68

78

29

64

53

38

28

23

49

52

Computers

16

17

13

13

9

9

9

46

9

9

13

45

13

25

9

12

9

13

9

16

Television

35

33

35

11

49

18

29

15

33

9

37

68

43

23

59

41

35

57

25

47

Home environment

20

18

14

5

14

5

5

32

14

5

5

59

5

50

23

27

5

50

5

50

Urban environment

38

34

32

11

32

35

19

19

33

17

44

60

32

41

65

51

48

55

35

66

Educational environment

38

37

25

71

37

10

10

25

34

10

40

61

34

64

56

41

45

55

20

45

Assistive technologies

60

61

88

12

23

88

12

50

61

50

68

88

88

74

88

57

23

63

68

74

Public procurement

50

47

51

40

22

35

23

58

47

19

71

56

68

35

85

70

76

71

57

76

Non
-
Discrimination

51

48

40

6

36

50

48

39

35

60

50

94

56

26

80

63

43

70

60

80

Employment

59

61

50

21

88

88

26

50

40

26

60

83

79

93

93

52

2

60

55

93

Deliberation and enforcement of public policy

46

47

62

28

20

55

12

60

60

33

64

80

50

17

75

41

39

29

40

56

TOTAL

42

41

43

26

35

39

20

40

37

26

47

69

45

45

61

46

34

49

39

60

Source: Own elaboration,

2010.


Unit: Percentages



Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



27

1

Introduction

1.1

The challenge of eAccessibility

The full participation of every citizen in the knowledge society
depends on the implementation, both competitive and attentive
of social cohesion, of the Info
rmation and Communication
Technologies (ICTs). This has been a key policy goal for the
European Union since the Lisbon Strategy.

The policy context includes the European Commission's
eAccessibility Communication of 2005

(E
C
, 2005e), the 2006
Ministerial “R
iga Declaration” on ICT for an inclusive information
society (E
C
, 2006c) and the Commission’s i2010 initiative "To
be part

of the information society” (EC
, 2007c), the Commission
Staff working paper “Towards a renewed Social Agenda for
Europe


Citizens’ W
ell
-
being in the Information Society” (E
C
,
2008c), the Communication from the European Commission
“Towards an accessible information society” (E
C

2008b) and
accompanying working documents

(E
C
, 2008a, 2008h) which
highlight the need for dedicated efforts at

the European policy
level if fundamental targets are to be reached, as well as the
strategic guidance and actions to be taken to achieve them.

The Riga Declaration highlights the need for facilitating the
accessibility and usability of ICT products and se
rvices for all,
with a special focus on people with disabilities. Enhancing
eAccessibility requires using all available instruments, from
voluntary industry commitments to new legal provisions at EU
and national level where appropriate. Mainstreaming eIncl
usion
in all policy areas and mobilising key players (Member States,
industry and users) are necessary for achieving the effective
implementation of accessible ICT in daily life.

Despite all these valuable initiatives, progress is still lacking and
most of

the Riga targets may not be reached. The evidence
currently available, based on the MeAC
-

Measuring Progress of
eAccessibility in Europe (Empirica and others, 2007), shows
how people with disabilities in Europe continue to be confronted
with many barrier
s to usage of everyday ICT products and
services. The European i2010 initiative on eInclusion reveals
how the lack of eAccessibility persists in many countries, e.g.
regarding websites, digital television, telephone access to
emergency services, or public
information terminals. And new
Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



28

barriers are appearing. The findings also suggest that the
eAccessibility situation is better in countries with strong
regulation, which does not constitute a barrier to a fully
competitive ICT market. On the contrary, legal
requirements on
eAccessibility have set a level playing field for companies and
have led to new business opportunities.

The progress made

so far

-

and the remaining gaps
-

in
eAccessibility, as well as the effectiveness of the various
instruments all need
to be regularly assessed. In accordance
with the

EU indications

mentioned

above
, a series of measures
were

taken both to ascertain the current status of eAccessibility
in Europe and to develop and apply eAccessibility policy at EU
-
level and across the Memb
er States. Maintaining and enhancing
this approach will set the bases for the know
-
how to adopt
better
-
informed decisions with a view to achieving the
eAccessibility aims established in the EU.

The Consultation workshop on Web accessibility and
eAccessibil
ity: summary of outcomes (Brussels, 10
th

June 2008)
points out the substantial scale of the Web accessibility problem
in Europe because the majority of websites, be they public or
private, do not comply with the basic internationally accepted
accessibility

guidelines (p. 11). The publication of updated Web
guidelines (WCAG 2.0) in December 2008 makes the situation
even more complicated. As stated in COM (2008) 804 final, the
challenge is to avoid the fragmented implementation of these
new guidelines across
Europe. Moreover, accessibility of ICT
products has increased over the last few years and nowadays,
although it is not difficult to find accessible or partially
accessible products, it is very difficult to evaluate the real level
of accessibility as there
are no horizontal standards or
guidelines for evaluating accessibility in different ICT products.
As shown in the Final workshop of the “Analysis of the AT ICT
Industry in Europe” Dusseldorf, 15 October 2008, the situation
is similar in the Assistive Techn
ology ICT industry.

As stated in COM (2008) 804 final, in order to speed up
progress the Commission will monitor and publish progress on
Web accessibility and eAccessibility. This study on Monitoring
eAccessibility in Europe presents an innovative approac
h for
carrying out the evaluation and monitoring process as well as
the benchmarking and dissemination of the results.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



29

1.2

Policy background and market drivers

At European policy level, the issues of eInclus
ion, the Digital
Divide, eAccessibility and Assistive Technology have, in recent
years, achieved high EU
-
level policy visibility and attention. On
eAccessibility alone, three EC Communications focused on
-

or
addressed to a large extent
-

this issue (COM (
2005) 525,
COM
(
2007) 694, and
COM (
2008) 804)

have been published
. Other
documents such as the Riga Ministerial declaration, the
Renewed Social Agenda
4

and other non
-
binding instruments
5

provide the policy context, and highlight the need for dedicated
eff
orts at the European policy level if fundamental targets are to
be reached, as well as the strategic guidance and actions that
need to be taken to achieve them. eAccessibility has also
achieved a prominent position in the EU’s R&D programmes,



4

The importance of the Information Soc
iety and
e
-
Inclusion is recognised in the
Renewed Social Agenda COM 2008(412), and eAccessibility is a key component
of this.

5

There were some developed during the course of the two e
-
Europe plans. On
eAccessibility research, there have been over 15 years

of EU support, especially
in terms of R&D and early attempts at user development through studies and
coordinated actions.

including FP7
, the ICT Policy Support Programme and the AAL
Programme.

In all these combined documents and concerted efforts, there
have been common calls and recognition for the need to
improve the level of accessibility of ICT in Europe, and the
possibilities that AT

offers in its support of the challenges faced
by Europe’s disabled and ageing population, in terms of cost
savings alongside improved quality of life and prolonged
independent living.

Recent EU policy developments thus recognise more than ever
that inclus
ive ICT and AT are essential to enable the full
participation in society for many people, notably disabled
people and older people. Such technologies allow citizens to
participate more fully in the Information Society by mitigating
the barriers they may fa
ce in their daily lives. Despite all these
valuable initiatives, progress is still slow and most of the Riga
targets had not been reached by 2010. The eAccessibility
Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



30

target
6

in particular is very far from achievement and it is
among the actions expected to

improve in terms of policy
strategy.

There are currently no EU
-
level legislative or other co
-
ordination measures that specifically address either public AT
delivery systems or the AT manufacturing sector. Nevertheless,
Directive 2000/78/EC “Establishing
a general framework for
equal treatment in employment and occupation”, the
“Employment Equality Directive” (E
C
, 2000b), includes a
requirement that employers make reasonable accommodations
to ensure equality of access to employment for people with
disabili
ties unless such measures would impose a
disproportionate burden on the employer. Although no specific
reference to ICT accessibility is made, the Preamble mentions
adaptation to equipment as an example of appropriate
measures that may need to be taken. Al
though not explicit in
the text, this provides a linkage to public support in relation to
eAccessibility, for example, through AT service delivery
systems. Furthermore, the 2008 Study “Towards a framework



6

The
Riga Ministerial Declaration in 2006 foresaw that all public sector websites
(100%) would be eAccessible by 2010.

for further development of EU legislation or other
co
-
ordination
measures on eAccessibility” reflects that while most (but not
all) Member States had introduced a clear requirement for
employers to make 'reasonable accommodations', eAccessibility
was not yet explicitly visible in this context in most count
ries.
Furthermore, most countries had not made a direct link
between employment equality law and public AT service
provisions.

References to eAccessibility have, on the other hand, appeared
in the domain of radio and telecommunication terminal
equipment (E
U, 1999b), electronic communications networks
and services (EU, 2002a), and audiovisual media services (EU,
2007h). More recently, the review of the Telecoms Package
from November 2009 sets out improvements in how people with
disabilities can access teleco
mmunications products and
services. In the Users’ Rights Directive, there are two major
improvements for users with disabilities: first, the wording
“equivalent access” for users with disabilities will be used
throughout the legislative proposals (Article
7, 22.1., 23.a. and
26.4.). Equivalent access is defined as “functionally equivalent”
(new recital 6.c.). The new article 23.a. ensures “equivalence in
access and choice for disabled end
-
users” to electronic
Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



31

communications. Second, other important elements

include the
addition of “certain aspects of terminal equipment intended to
facilitate access for disabled end
-
users” within the scope of the
Directive (Article 1.1.), access to emergency services and 112,
the single European emergency number (Article 26.4
.).

Last but not least, horizontal and cross
-
sectoral legislation (that
is, not ICT
-
specific), in relation to copyright (EU 2001e), public
procurement (EU, 2004b) and structural funds, has
incorporated references to eAccessibility and the needs and
rights
of
people with disabilities

(EU, 2006e).

Despite the many policy efforts that have been made over the
past decade, the level of eAccessibility remains overall quite
poor. It is safe to state that, when comparing efforts and
outcomes (for instance as shown
in the Riga Dashboard
results), eAccessibility scored worse than other eInclusion
support measures. As shown in the policy background, ICT
continues to play an increasingly important role in the daily
activities of many people in Europe and beyond, empower
ing
and further improving their quality of life. ICT pervades our
society, bringing social and economic gains to public
administrations, businesses and citizens. ICT products and
services are increasingly being used by people in many facets of
their lives
as citizens, consumers, learners, patients,
professionals, and in other life roles. They do so for a variety of
reasons including availability, affordability, familiarity,
simplicity, trust, and time savings, thus extending the benefits
of good accessibili
ty from one part of their lives to another.

The full participation of every citizen in the Information Society
depends on the implementation of ICT. That has been a key
policy goal for the European Union from the Lisbon Strategy in
2000 to the present.
In
2005, the European standardisation
organisations were issued with the mandate to develop
European accessibility requirements for public procurement of
products and services in the ICT domain (EC, 2005a).
In May
2010, the EC adopted the Digital Agenda for E
urope


its new

strategy for the digital era

(EC, 2010c)
. It is one of the seven
flagship initiatives of Europe 2020


the EU’s economic strategy
launched in March 2010 to lead Europe out of the current
economic crisis and to prepare the EU economy for the

challenges of the next decade.
European Disability Strategy

2010
-
2020, includes a commitment to a European Accessibility
Act (EC, 2010b).

The evidence currently available demonstrates how people with
disabilities in Europe continue to face many barriers
in their
Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



32

everyday use of the ICT products and services that are now
essential parts of economic and social life. Data reveal how the
lack of eAccessibility persists in many E
U

countries, regarding,
for instance, public websites, digital television, and tel
ephone
access to emergency services and public
digital
terminals

(EU,
2007c, 2007d, 2009e).

Many E
U

countries now work to reconcile their social protection
policies and strike an appropriate balance between allowing
trade to flourish and respecting social

standards; stimulating
economic growth and increasing employment rates; and
including larger sections of the population in the Information
Society’s economic activities, thereby enabling them to be
active citizens, live independently and avoid social excl
usion.

1.3

Approach and methodology of the study "Monitoring eAccessibility
in Europe (2010
-
2011)
"

The 2010 report

This study aims to contribute to the development and
implementation of the European Union’s policy of eAccessibility
by providing useful information as to the approaches, practices
and the impact of measures to promote eAccessibility, taking
into considera
tion the interests of end
-
users and other relevant
aspects such as competitiveness and market forces.

The general objective is to monitor the status and progress
made in eAccessibility in a series of selected countries (EU
Member States and third countrie
s), identifying the best
practices in the fields of legislation, policies and practices;
ensuring a direct and active interaction between the relevant
actors involved in the implementation and assessment of actual
eAccessibility;
a
s

well as defining, devel
oping and applying a
comparative analysis framework within which to monitor
progress made in eAccessibility over time and among countries.

The
annual report

presents relevant information on legislative
and non
-
legislative developments, activities and pract
ices which
directly or indirectly relate to improvement in eAccessibility.
The report is supported by an ICT tool based on the concept of
Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



33

the Balanced Score Card (BSC)
7

for gathering the data compiled
by the

national experts, carrying out automated surveys

with
which to make databases and incorporating data from the
different stakeholders. Moreover, the tool, based on accessible
Web technology, will enable the data to be fully exploited
through views from different dimensions, comparisons and
dynamic report
s, as well as allowing the information to be
disseminated among all the
interested parties.
The report of the
2011 results will include a specific section about the evolution of
technology and policy between both years.

The research team

Monitoring eAccess
ibility in Europe is a study led by Technosite
in partnership with NOVA and CNIPA, in collaboration with I2BC,
The Blanck Group and CDLP
-
NUI for the European Commission,
DG Information Society and Media, Unit H.3 'ICT for inclusion'.
The research team is c
omposed of a series of partners and
subcontractors and a network of national experts.

Partners:




7

The BSC is

available on the project website, in the section “Statistical
information” (
http://www.eaccessibility
-
monitoring.eu/BSC/
)

Technosite

is the ICT company of ONCE Foundation and
specialises in providing accessible solutions across technologies.
Its business model is based on R&D and innovation as a way to
offer cutting
-
edge consultancy services. The main business
objective of Technosite i
s to facilitate access for people with
disabilities to the Information Society.

NOVA

is a research institute under the auspices of the
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

CNIPA

(now DigitPA)
, is the National Centre for ICT in Public
Administration (CNIPA
-

Centro Nazionale per l'Informatica nella
Pubblica Amministrazione), a public body established within the
Prime Minister'
s Office to implement the policies of the Ministry
for Public Administration and Innovation.

Subcontractors:

Institute of Innovation for Human Wellbeing (I2BC)

is a
Spanish non
-
profit
organisation

whose objective is to
improve
human wellbeing by developing solutions to daily problems and
improve overall quality of life.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



34

The Blanck Group

is the leading consultancy with national and
international clients specializing in disability law a
nd policy.

Centre for Disability Law & Policy (CDLP
-
NUI)

has firmly
established itself at the forefront of international and
comparative legal and policy analysis of disability issues, both in
Ireland and worl
dwide.

Network of national experts:

The network consists of a technology and a policy expert in
each country, selected according to
objective criteria based on
scientific relevance and impact, position, scientific and technical
level, expertise, lack of
political influence, independence from
the checker and legal availability
.

Scope of the study

The global scope of the study was defined by the number of
countries in the study and the set of technologies (aspects) to
be monitored. Both countries and techn
ologies were selected
taking into account objective criteria.

Selection of countries

The MeAC eAccessibility status and policy score were analysed
in order to establish a scientific and objective criterion for
country selection.

The 1
2

EU Member States sel
ected for the sample of the study
are:



Czech Republic



Denmark



France



Germany



Hungary



Ireland



Italy



Portugal



Spain



Sweden



The Netherlands



United Kingdom

The non
-
EU Member States selected for the study are:



Australia



Canada



United States of America

In
addition, two more countries (Greece and Norway) have
participated in a voluntary basis reaching a total amount of 17
countries.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



35

Annex I of this report describes the specific selection process
followed to obtain the final list of participant countries.

Sel
ection of technologies

In order to analyse the different technologies, a series of
indicators, or aspects to assess, was defined both at the
technological and policy levels. The selection of technologies,
indicators and the assessment and scoring methods o
n which
the analysis is based was carried out in two phases:



Phase 1: Analysis of

the information gathered in the
MeAC study.

To identify the technologies, indicators and
assessment methods used for the MeAC study.



Phase 2: Incorporat
ion of

new technologi
es and
indicators.

Analyse the scope of the sample taking into
account the recommendations of the European Commission,
the MeAC study and the experience in R&D projects of the
organisations performing the study.

For each indicator the description specifie
s whether it was
addressed by the MeAC study or if it is new, thus ensuring
accurate analysis of the evolution of the technology as regards
accessibility level and implementation of eAccessibility law and
policy, while at the same time analysing new techno
logies,
factors, needs and measures.

The sample of products, services and areas of analysis were
selected from four general sources:



ICTs already measured in the MeAC study.

To monitor
and compare progress in eAccessibility over time and
between countries

it will be necessary to continue to
monitor the same products and services considered in
MeAC. This will be the core of the ICT sample, although
other ICTs will be considered.



ICTs proposed by the MeAC study.

The study suggested
that some ICTs should be c
onsidered in the future for
further analysis. Based on this proposal, some new products
and services were included in the sample.



ICTs proposed by the European Commission.

The
European Commission proposed a set of ICTs for this study
when announcing the ca
ll, some of which had not been
analysed in MeAC.



ICTs proposed by the
organisation
s in charge of the
study (partners)
, as a consequence of their experience in
R&D projects in the accessibility field.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



36

The following table classifies the categories of product
s and
services analysed, as well as their source and whether they
have relevant indicators in the technology and/or policy
sections.

Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe

(2010
-
2011)



Monitoring
eAccessibility
in Europe: 2010 Annual R
eport



37

Table
3
.

Classification of the categories of products and services analysed

CATEGORY

PRODUCTS/SERVICES

SECTION

SOURCE

BACKGROUND
INFORMATION

Background information

Political

European Commission’s proposal

TELEPHONY

Fixed telephony

Political and Technology

MeAC

Mobile telephony

Political and Technology

MeAC

Special telephones (text and videophone)

Political and Technology

MeAC

Mobile Web

Political and Technology

Partners’ proposal

INTERNET

Web Content

Political and Technology

MeAC

COMPUT
ERS
8


Computers
(desktop and portable)

Political and Technology

MeAC

Software applications

Political and Technology

MeAC

Computer peripherals

Political and Technology

Partners’ proposal

TELEVISION

Television content

Political and Technology

MeAC

Digital TV
equipment

Political and Technology

European Commission’s proposal

HOME
ENVIRONMENT

Digital homes

Political and Technology

European Commission’s proposal

Telecare

Political and Technology

Partners’ proposal

URBAN
ENVIRONMENT