meac 2: overall results - presentation at incom meeting
DESCRIPTION
“Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe 2010-2011” MEAC 2 Study General presentation on relevant results, specific reports and recommendations for future studies on monitoring eAccessibilityTRANSCRIPT
Study on Monitoring eAccesibility in Europe
Meeting on e-accessibility studies, 16 April 2010
Jose Angel Martinez UseroProject 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
• 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
Monitoring eAccessibility
http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Study main outcomes
http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/BSC/
BSC perspectives
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
Automatic reports
From the technology or policy indicators.
Automatic reports
Combining technology and policy indicators
Dynamic reports
Step 1: Chose the view • year, • technology or policy,• countries
Dynamic reports
Step 2: Chose the category/ies, countries and years
Dynamic reports
Step 3. Get the dynamic table and rotate
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
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.
Benchmarking reports - example
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.
Specific reports
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.
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
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
Global status of eAccessibility technologies in EU and non-EU countries. 2011
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
41
44
29
40
33
24
38
36
74
52
48
52
33
48
31
37
47
53
81
41
GLOBAL STATUS OF EACCESSIBITLY
Telephony
Internet
Computers
Television
Home environment
Urban environment
Educational environment
Assistive technologies
Public procurement
EU countries Non-EU countries
Global status of eAccessibility technologies, by country. 2011
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
4341
3737
3542
3023
5448
3654
3549
5748
3661
5045
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
GRAND TOTALTOTAL EU COUNTRIES
Czech RepublicDenmark
FranceGermany
GreeceHungary
IrelandItaly
PortugalSpain
SwedenThe NetherlandsUnited Kingdom
TOTAL NON-EU COUNTRIESAustralia
CanadaNorway
United States of America
Status of eAccessibility policy in EU and non-EU countries. 2011
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
43
41
51
19
34
22
36
36
65
53
50
64
47
47
53
42
15
44
27
54
40
61
68
61
51
48
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
Status of eAccessibility policy, by country. 2011
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
4443
4839
3541
2141
2733
5273
4345
6447
3752
3960
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
GRAND TOTALTOTAL EU COUNTRIES
Czech RepublicDenmark
FranceGermany
GreeceHungary
IrelandItaly
PortugalSpain
SwedenThe NetherlandsUnited Kingdom
TOTAL NON-EU COUNTRIESAustralia
CanadaNorway
United States of America
Correspondence between eAccessibility level and policy implementation in the countries analysed. 2011
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
0
20
40
60
80
100CZ
DK
FR
DE
GR
HU
IE
ITPTES
SE
NL
UK
AU
CA
NO
US
eAccessibility policy implementation leveleAccessibility status
Correspondence between eAccessibility level and policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. 2011
Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
0
20
40
60
80
100Telephony
Internet
Computers
Television
Home environment
Urban environment
Educational environment
Assistive technologies
Public procurement
eAccessibility statuseAccessibility policy implementation level
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.
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.
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.
