A Political Strategy for Digital Information Accessibility

humanITy Briefing Paper 4

Date: 02/04/2003

1. Introduction / Background

The welcome completion of the third set of Accessibility Guidelines produced by the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) presents a good opportunity to review the strengths and weaknesses of that process and, in the light of these, propose a political strategy for digital information accessibility for the European Union (EU) in general and the United Kingdom (UK) in particular.

2. The WAI Approach

2.1 The fundamental characteristics of the WAI approach are that it is:

Standard setting
Advisory/light touch
Consensual
Iterative
End-to-end
Generic/platform independent
Sensitive to inter sectoral dependencies
Impartial
Collaborative (industry, academia, technical, consumer)

2.2 Of course, some of these strengths were also weaknesses. For example, the consensual nature of the process made it slow, often slower than the evolution of the external environment, which in turn meant that issues tended to be dealt with sequentially because of the necessarily limited resources of an initiative with slender financial and personnel resources, relying on massive volunteer resources.

2.3 Because of these characteristics the first great WAI product, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG Version 1.0) was a global success which informs the legislative and regulatory frameworks of almost every country with a substantial interest in the Web.

2.4 On balance, the strengths overwhelmingly outweighed the weaknesses. The process might have been relatively slow and somewhat narrow but the results have been impressive; WCAG 1.0 is being revised and it has been subsequently complemented by Web Authoring Tools Accessibility (WATA Version 1.0) and now User Agent Accessibility (UAA Version 1.0) Guidelines.

3. Wider Applications

The processes of the WAI should be modified for use at the national and European level but modified in a number of ways:

First, Government officials might be part of the process at the national and European levels.

Secondly, the emphasis should, while not abandoning the very particular needs of legally/classifiably disabled people suffering from physical impairments, physical, audio, visual, embrace the needs of those with learning and cognitive difficulties, illiterate people and those who have particular problems with particular information renderings/modes.

Thirdly, broadcasting, and particularly public broadcasting, should be central to the remit.

Fourthly, in spite of deregulation of user interface design in telecommunications and consumer electronics, some attempt should be made to ensure, for example, that mobile telephones and digital radios are not inaccessible to visually impaired people.

4. The European Union

Currently, the European Union (EU) approach to information accessibility is - if it can be all these things simultaneously - incoherent, arbitrary, fragmented, blinkered, secretive and exclusive.

Incoherent. The e-Europe strategy developed under the Portuguese EU Presidency in the first half of 2000 began with a separate strand on accessibility in general and disability access in particular. When this strand was abandoned in favour of a 'cross cutting' approach, all specific content of the initial strand was lost.
Fragmented. Logically, digital information accessibility should come under the remit of the Information Society Directorate where relations with WAI are dealt with; but accessibility flowing from e-Europe has been lodged with ESDIS which relates to labour and welfare. Neither of these sectors, however, has a broadcasting remit which is the realm of information of most concern to most people with digital information access problems. The e-Accessibility Expert Group under ESDIS, for example, was not even informed of the public hearings on the barriers to digital television accessibility.
Arbitrary. EU officials have, sadly, concurred with the disability lobby (dominated by the European Forum on Disability which is heavily biased towards wheelchair users and blind people) that people with learning, cognitive and developmental difficulties fall outside the accessibility remit, even if they fall inside it under Member State legislation.
Blinkered. Almost all official attention has been focused on access to text on the Internet, particularly on access to EU and Member State public sector sites. Discussions on broadcasting, publishing, financial services take place in different fora without reference to access. Further, the term "/barriers/” in the access context is always taken to mean geographical and economic barriers and always excludes accessibility in the sense in which it relates to people who have difficulty interacting with digital information systems.
Secretive. Because standard setting is conducted under the guise of Member State negotiations, proceedings of committees are secret.
Exclusive. Where standards are being set (ATAG, UAAG) the main players are academics or industry. Users are not participants.

5. The United Kingdom

5.1 Because of the European dimension, UK competence in digital information accessibility standard setting is limited but there are some specific areas, such as the application of WAI, the accessibility of information under the current DDA and the forthcoming implementation of the Freedom of Information Act and access to broadcasting under the new OFCOM regime. (See humanITy Briefing Paper 3 on these specific issues).

5.2 The Disability Rights Commission, the guardian of the DDA might have been expected to act as a focal point for digital information accessibility issues but it has been sadly weak and has become increasingly distant from the major 'disability' charities which, in turn, find it hard to work together.

5.3 The Office of the e-Envoy has shown a strong interest in accessibility matters, particularly WAI, but does not appear to be disposed to work across the whole accessibility spectrum, particularly broadcasting.

6. Proposals

The EU; That

6.1 All accessibility matters within the EU, geographical, economic, social, disability,

Linguistic, should be under the remit of the Information Society Directorate which should consult, as necessary with other Directorates.

6.2 Broadcasting accessibility should receive urgent attention, taking priority, if necessary, over access to public sector sites which are not interactive or service providing.

6.3 The monopoly privileges of the European Forum on Disability should be curtailed unless it is reformed.

The UK; That:

6.4 The Office of the e-Envoy takes responsibility for accessibility in the UK, consulting and devolving where necessary.

6.5 OFCOM has a specific accessibility remit which includes the accessibility of the BBC portfolio.

6.6 The DRC take up accessibility or devolve it to an accountable agency.

7. Resources

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines, http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
EC, 1999. e-Europe Initiative . An information Society for all. http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/action_plan/index_en.htm
EC, 2000. e-Europe 2002 Action Plan http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/action_plan/index_en.htm
Carey, K. 2001 Provisional but forever: Two faces of Internet publishing
Presentation to The Future of Electronic Publishing: The Era of Unlimited Potential Hilton Amsterdam - 30th January, 2001. http://www.humanity.org.uk/articles/sp_hiltonam.shtml
Carey, K. 2002 . Access to the OFCOM portfolio and the BBC by people with functional limitations in respect of information systems. Westminster Media Forum. 14 December 2002.

Return to Politics and Culture