DOCSLIB.ORG

Study on Assessing and Promoting E-Accessibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FR STUDY ON ASSESSING AND PROMOTING E-ACCESSIBILITY FINAL REPORT A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology Digital Agenda for Europe This study was carried out for the European Commission by Authors of this report This report was compiled and edited by Lutz Kubitschke (empirica), Kevin Cullen (WRC), Ciaran Dolphin (WRC), Susanna Laurin (Funka Nu) and Andreas Cederbom (Funka Nu) with the support of the overall study team and a network of national correspondents. Overall study team Lutz Kubitschke, Wencke Höhner, Susanna Laurin, Andreas Cederbom, Sonja Müller, Ingo Meyer José Angel Martinez Usero, Jonas empirica Gesellschaft für Eriksson, Malin Forne, Torbjørn Kommunikations- und Helland, Solhaug, Jennifer Jordahl, Technologieforschung mbH Pernilla Lövenhamn Seger, Jeanette Nilsson, Stefan Pelc, Sarah Skinner Funka Nu Kevin Cullen, Ciaran Dolphin Amalia del Río Montero Work Research Centre Technosite Internal identification Contract number: 30-CE-0454397/00-83 SMART 2011/0070 DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. ISBN 978-92-79-33183-1 DOI 10.2759/33027 © European Union, 2013. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. National correspondents Country specific data reported in this document have been collated by the following national correspondents according to a common research template: Gunela Astbrink (Australia) Martina Lindhofer (Austria) Jean Joseph Engelen (Belgium) Todor Yalamov (Bulgaria) James Carter (Canada) Nikolaos Floratos (Cyprus, Greece) Jaroslav Havlíček, Robert Hlavatý (Czech Republic) Susanna Laurin (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) Jane Matt, Hille Hinsberg (Estonia) Erkki Kemppainen, Jouko Kokko (Finland) Dominique Burger (France) Wencke Höhner (Germany) György Lengyel (Hungary) Elisabeth Schmid, Mariano Peluso (Italy) Ciaran Dolphin (Ireland) Arnis Gulbis (Latvia) Austė Kiškienė (Lithuania) Jörg Artmann (Luxembourg) Brian Restall (Malta) Thea van der Geest, Eric Velleman (Netherlands) Katarzyna Świeżawska-Ambroziak (Poland) Carlos Rodrigues, Gonçalo Santinha (Portugal) Alina Beatrice Raileanu (Romania) Radoslav Delina, František Janke (Slovakia) Vasja Vehovar (Slovenia) Manon van Leeuwen, Enrique Varela (Spain) Irena Kolar (United Kingdom) Cathy Bodine, Maureen Melonis (USA) Contents 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 4 2 WEB ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 THE WEBSITES COVERED AND ASSESSMENT METHOD APPLIED ............................................................5 2.2 RESULTS OF THE WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENTS.....................................................................9 2.3 THE POLICY CONTEXT..............................................................................................................39 2.4 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................45 3 TELECOMS.................................................................................................................... 47 3.1 SOME INDICATORS OF EQUIVALENCE OF ACCESS............................................................................47 3.2 OTHER ASPECTS ....................................................................................................................88 3.3 EVOLUTION IN RECENT YEARS ...................................................................................................93 3.4 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................94 4 TELEVISION................................................................................................................... 96 4.1 ACCESSIBILITY OF BROADCAST TV PROGRAMME CONTENTS.............................................................96 4.2 OTHER ASPECTS .................................................................................................................. 110 4.3 EVOLUTION IN RECENT YEARS ................................................................................................. 114 4.4 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 117 5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................119 Annexes Annex 1 ‐ Obligations in relation to public web site accessibility ........................................................................122 Annex 2 ‐ Scope of public sector obligations ......................................................................................................140 Annex 3 ‐ Timeframes for web accessibility.........................................................................................................145 Annex 4 ‐ Obligations in relation to accessibility of (outsourced/privatized) 'Basic services' websites .............149 Annex 5 ‐ Obligations in relation to private (commercial) website accessibility .................................................153 Annex 6 ‐ Web accessibility standards/guidelines applied ..................................................................................156 Annex 7 ‐ Monitoring of web accessibility ...........................................................................................................160 Annex 8 ‐ Evolution of web accessibility policy in recent years...........................................................................170 Annex 9 ‐ Policy situation in relation to choice for telecoms users with disabilities ...........................................179 Annex 10 ‐ Evolution of telecoms accessibility policy..........................................................................................186 Annex 11 ‐ Evolution of television accessibility policy.........................................................................................200 List of figures Figure 2-1 Test 1 overall results........................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-2 Average scores for each country - Test 1............................................................................ 11 Figure 2-3 Average scores across all countries for each service type - Test 1 .................................... 11 Figure 2-4 Test 2 overall results........................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-5 Scores for each country - Test 2......................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-6 Average scores across all countries for each service type - Test 2 ................................... 14 Figure 2-7 Test 3 overall results........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-8 Average scores for each country - Test 3........................................................................... 16 Figure 2-9 Average scores across all countries for each service type - Test 3 ................................... 16 Figure 2-10 Test 4 overall results......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2-11 Average scores for each country - Test 4......................................................................... 18 Figure 2-12 Average scores across all countries for each service type - Test 4 ................................. 19 Figure 2-13 Test 5 overall results......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-14 Average scores for each country - Test 5......................................................................... 21 Figure 2-15 Average scores across all countries for each service type - Test 5 ................................. 21 Figure 2-16 Test 6 overall results......................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-17 Average scores for each country - Test 6......................................................................... 24 Figure 2-18 Average scores across all countries for each service type - Test 6 ................................. 24 Figure 2-19 Test 7 overall results......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 2-20 Average scores for each country - Test 7......................................................................... 26 Figure 2-21 Average scores across all countries for each service type - Test 7 ................................. 27 Figure 2-22 Test 8 overall results......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 2-23 Average scores for each country - Test 8........................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Engineering Accessible Web Applications

    Engineering Accessible Web Applications

    Universidad Nacional de La Plata Facultad de Informática Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor (Ph.D.) in Informatics Science Engineering Accessible Web Applications. An Aspect-Oriented Approach Author: Mg. Adriana E. Martín Supervisor: Ph.D. Alejandra Cechich Co-Supervisor: Ph.D. Gustavo Rossi September 2011 ABSTRACT Building Accessible Web applications is nowadays a must. Every day more and more users with different abilities and/or temporally or permanent disabilities are accessing the Web, and many of them have special difficulties in reaching the desired information. However, the development of this kind of Web software is complicated for several reasons. Though some of them are technological, the majority are related with the need to compose different and, many times, unrelated design concerns which may be functional as in the case of most of the specific application’s requirements, or non- functional such as Accessibility itself. Even though, today there is a huge number of tools and proposals to help developers assess Accessibility of Web applications, looking from the designer perspective, there is no such a similar situation. It seems that creating accessible Web sites is more expensive and complicated than creating Web sites and then assessing/modifying them. Although this feeling may be largely true, the benefits of modelling Accessibility at early design stages outweigh the needs of a developer to implement that Accessibility. In this thesis, we present a novel approach to conceive, design and develop Accessible Web applications in an Aspect-Oriented manner. In order to reach our goal, we provide some modeling techniques that we specifically developed for handling the non- functional, generic and crosscutting characteristics of Accessibility as a quality factor concern.
  • Annual Report 2019: Center for Persons with Disabilities

    Annual Report 2019: Center for Persons with Disabilities

    ANNUAL REPORT 2019 CENTER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CPD MISSION We are working together to create inclusive communities and improve the lives of children and adults with disabilities and their families through sustainable innovation, collaborative research, responsive service, and interdisciplinary training and education. CONTACT THE CPD Phone:435-797-1981 www.cpd.usu.edu Address: 6800 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-6800 From the Director THIS PAST YEAR AT THE CPD has been marked by new projects, new personnel, and a renewed focus on building partnerships on campus, in our communities, and across the country. In the pursuit of our mission to create more inclusive communities and improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families, we have focused our efforts on diversifying our projects and expanding our reach into the community, state, and nation. New projects have strengthened our efforts on mental health issues, employment supports for people with disabilities, and literacy. This year marks the best funding year for the CPD in the past five years, which is a testament to the hard work of our dedicated staff. The fact that we have continued to grow, in spite of a challenging funding environment, is a clear indicator that the CPD is adapting Dr. Matthew Wappett and evolving. Much of our success has come from new federal and CPD Executive Director state partnerships that build upon the reputation of our people and programs. In FY 2019, CPD staff worked on 114 different projects delivering training, conducting research, and providing technical assistance in every Utah county, 46 U.S.
  • Least You Need to Know

    Least You Need to Know

    Accessibility Maintainers of WebLearn sites need to be aware of accessibility issues, for users with various types of impairment Why are accessibility issues important? Have you ever experienced problems such as Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), sore eyes, headaches, back or shoulder aches from long term use of a computer? Are you perhaps colour blind, have a touch of dyslexia, or need magnification of the computer screen? Are you sensitive to screen flashing due to photo-sensitive epilepsy? It is not only major sensory impairments such as vision or hearing disabilities which impede people in their use of technology. In many cases, assistive/adaptive/access technology (AT) can be used to enable or facilitate the use, navigation, creation or completion of electronic materials (such as web pages, online forms, Internet services and products) that would be inaccessible by conventional means. Assistive technologies include screen readers (such as JAWS, ReadPlease, BrowseAloud) or screen enlargers (magnifiers), voice recognition systems, alternative input devices such as eye or head operated pointing devices. The Opera browser now includes voice-enabled shopping and booking systems and spoken commands to browse the web. What types of impairments need to be considered? It helps to classify types of impairments in order be able to address differing needs (AbilityNet (www.abilitynet.org.uk) • Vision – including blindness, partial sightedness, colour blindness and tunnel vision • Hearing – deaf and partial hearing • Headings are an absolute Mobility problems – RSI, problems with using hands or arms asset – you can key through • Cognitive, mental problems – including dyslexia, learning problems them by ‘arrowing down’ A quotation from a blind person browsing internet sites with the help of a screen reader: (using the down arrow on the keyboard) Holistic approach to web design Build your Content first (in a simple, linear layout), add styling on top of that (e.g.
  • Webaim Campus Training Session 2

    Webaim Campus Training Session 2

    WebAIM Campus Training-Session 2 OK, another aspect of accessibility for users with low vision is ensuring that there is sufficient contrast between the text content and the background. This is something that impacts everybody. We all have difficulty reading content if there is insufficient contrast. It is important to keep in mind that ultimately the end user has control over the way they view your web content. They can change colors. They can invert contrast. They can enable high contrast to override your colors to view content in a way that works best for them. So keep that in mind. This is always something that they can do. That idea that we fully control the user experience-- we have to give that up. We have to give up that notion that we control what the user is going to see or what they're going to do. What we want to do instead is to enable a good experience. If the user comes and they customize, they adapt the content for their own needs, what we have provided still is going to work for them. To ensure that you provide sufficient contrast, WCAG does define this for you. They provide some measures. All you have to do is implement this very basic formula, and just put this in your memory banks and you'll be good. No, you don't want to be doing this complex math to determine if your content has sufficient contrast. You want to use tools like the WebAIM Contrast Checker. This is a tool that we've built.
  • Appendix a the Ten Commandments for Websites

    Appendix a the Ten Commandments for Websites

    Appendix A The Ten Commandments for Websites Welcome to the appendixes! At this stage in your learning, you should have all the basic skills you require to build a high-quality website with insightful consideration given to aspects such as accessibility, search engine optimization, usability, and all the other concepts that web designers and developers think about on a daily basis. Hopefully with all the different elements covered in this book, you now have a solid understanding as to what goes into building a website (much more than code!). The main thing you should take from this book is that you don’t need to be an expert at everything but ensuring that you take the time to notice what’s out there and deciding what will best help your site are among the most important elements of the process. As you leave this book and go on to updating your website over time and perhaps learning new skills, always remember to be brave, take risks (through trial and error), and never feel that things are getting too hard. If you choose to learn skills that were only briefly mentioned in this book, like scripting, or to get involved in using content management systems and web software, go at a pace that you feel comfortable with. With that in mind, let’s go over the 10 most important messages I would personally recommend. After that, I’ll give you some useful resources like important websites for people learning to create for the Internet and handy software. Advice is something many professional designers and developers give out in spades after learning some harsh lessons from what their own bitter experiences.
  • Accessibility Requirements for UH Websites.Pdf

    Accessibility Requirements for UH Websites.Pdf

    Accessibility Requirements for UH Websites Section 508 and WCAG 2.0 Level A & AA These slides are at goo.gl/09Ifa2 Mitchell Ryan Sunny Ochi McCalla Walker ITS ITS UH Hilo ochi rmcalla swalker @hawaii.edu @hawaii.edu @hawaii.edu What is Accessibility? Accessibility is about access, not disability. Why is Accessibility Important? Without accessibility, those with disabilities would not be able to participate in this increasingly technology driven world. Physical Disabilities ● Color blind ● Low-vision or legally blind ● Hearing loss ● Low motor control ● Cognitive (e.g., dyslexia, high stress, non-native speaker, etc.) ● and more… Environmental/Temporary Disabilities ● Very small or large screen sizes ● Touch-only or keyboard-only ● Projected or on a TV ● Poor lighting ● Slow connection speed ● Background noise ● Printed ● User-overridden style sheets ● and more… Browser “Disabilities” ● Old IE ● Edge ● Safari (the new IE) ● Chrome ● Firefox ● Opera Mini ● UC Browser ● WebView (in-app) ● Different versions of the same browser ● and more… 2 Rule Sets Section 508 Law: www.section508.gov Checklist: webaim.org/standards/508/checklist WCAG 2.0 Specs: www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20 508 ♥ WCAG Checklist: webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist Compliance Deadline (spoiler: January 18, 2018) Section 508 or WCAG 2.0? Already 508 compliant? Not yet 508 compliant? Should update Must update to WCAG 2.0 A and AA. to WCAG 2.0 A and AA. “Safe-harbor” exemption if already fully compliant as of January 2018. What does compliance mean? What I see is not what you get. Alt
  • Cen Cwa 15778 Workshop Agreement

    Cen Cwa 15778 Workshop Agreement

    CEN CWA 15778 WORKSHOP February 2008 AGREEMENT ICS 35.240.30 English version Document Processing for Accessibility This CEN Workshop Agreement has been drafted and approved by a Workshop of representatives of interested parties, the constitution of which is indicated in the foreword of this Workshop Agreement. The formal process followed by the Workshop in the development of this Workshop Agreement has been endorsed by the National Members of CEN but neither the National Members of CEN nor the CEN Management Centre can be held accountable for the technical content of this CEN Workshop Agreement or possible conflicts with standards or legislation. This CEN Workshop Agreement can in no way be held as being an official standard developed by CEN and its Members. This CEN Workshop Agreement is publicly available as a reference document from the CEN Members National Standard Bodies. CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG Management Centre: rue de Stassart, 36 B-1050 Brussels © 2008 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CEN national Members. Ref. No.:CWA 15778:2008 D/E/F CWA 15778:2008 (E) Contents Page
  • Web Standards Facilitating Accessibility in a Digitally Inclusive South Africa – Perspectives from Developing the South African National Accessibility Portal

    Web Standards Facilitating Accessibility in a Digitally Inclusive South Africa – Perspectives from Developing the South African National Accessibility Portal

    Web standards facilitating accessibility in a digitally inclusive South Africa – Perspectives from developing the South African National Accessibility Portal L COETZEE*, I VIVIERS *Meraka Institute, CSIR, PO Box 395, Pretoria, 0001 Email: [email protected] 0 Abstract This paper presents limitations of technology, with specific reference to Web standards compliance, which impacted on meeting Many factors impact on the ability to create a accessibility requirements during the digitally inclusive society in a developing world development of the South African National context. These include lack of access to Accessibility Portal. These limitations introduce information and communication technology (ICT), barriers to information, thus impacting on the infrastructure, low literacy levels as well as low creation of a digitally inclusive society. ICT related skills. The lack of standards, or poor implementation of existing standards in The paper's layout is as follows. In Section 2 we technology, could also have a significant impact highlight the need for standards for the Web. on the pervasiveness and cost of developing Section 3 describes the most relevant and applications, thus creating more barriers in applicable standards with regard to the Web and society. This paper analyses the importance of specifically an accessible Web. Section 4 Web standards (especially those associated with presents a variety of tools that can be used to accessibility) in the creation of an inclusive measure the standards compliance of documents society using experiences gathered from the and websites. We introduce the South African development of the South African National National Accessibility Portal Initiative in Section Accessibility Portal. 5, with a focus on the South African National Accessibility Portal component (referred to as NAP) which forms the basis of our research.
  • Webaim Quick Reference: Testing Web Content for Accessibility

    Webaim Quick Reference: Testing Web Content for Accessibility

    Quick Reference: Testing Web Content for Accessibility Test with Check keyboard accessibility Run a report at wave.webaim.org. For very complex or The first time testing with Mac, press Control + F7 to non-public pages, use the WAVE Chrome or Firefox enable full keyboard accessibility. extension (wave.webaim.org/extension). o In Safari, select Preferences > Advanced > o Watch the overview video on the WAVE homepage. Accessibility > Press Tab to highlight each Error icons flag known issues. Other icons identify item… potential problems or features. Click an icon to highlight Navigate the page using only the keyboard: the corresponding element and learn more using the o Tab: Navigate interactive elements (links, form Reference panel. controls, etc.) Use the Details panel to review page issues. Click an o Shift + Tab: Navigate backwards. icon to find it in the page. Uncheck icons to hide them. o Enter: Activate links or buttons, submit most forms. Turn off Styles to simplify the page view and to check o Spacebar: Activate checkboxes and buttons, expand a the reading and navigation order. select menu, or scroll the window. Click the Code button at the bottom of the page to see o Arrow keys: Navigate radio buttons, the page code with WAVE icons. select/dropdown menus, sliders, tab panels, tree Images menus, etc. Ensure alternative text (shown in green) conveys the Look for mouse-only interaction (e.g., rollover menus). equivalent content and/or function of the image. Confirm every focusable element has a keyboard focus Look for ways to replace images of text with true text.
  • What Is BS 8878?

    What Is BS 8878?

    BS 8878:2010 - A Summary December 2010 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 Background ..................................................................................................................... 4 What is BS 8878? ............................................................................................................ 4 BS 8878 and the law ....................................................................................................... 5 Who is BS 8878 for? ........................................................................................................ 6 Key concepts ................................................................................................................... 6 Web products ............................................................................................................... 6 Degree of user-experience ........................................................................................... 7 User personalized approach to accessibility ................................................................ 7 BS 8878 Code of practice and compliance .................................................................. 8 Structure of BS 8878 ....................................................................................................... 9 Clauses ........................................................................................................................ 9 Annexes

  • Web Accessibility for Designers Great Web Accessibility Starts in the Design

    Web Accessibility FOR Designers Great web accessibility starts in the design. Plan Heading Structure Early Ensure all content and design fits into a logical heading structure. Ensure Logical Reading Order The reading order for screen reader users should align with the visual order. Provide Good Contrast Good Be especially careful with shades of orange, Bad yellow, and light gray. Use True Text Instead of Images of Text Abc True text enlarges better, loads faster, and is easier to translate and customize. Use Adequate Font Size AAA Small text is difficult for all users to see. Ensure text is optimally readable. Remember Line Length Abcdefg Don’t make lines too long or too short. Make Sure Links are Recognizable Link Distinguish links from body text using more than just color (e.g., underline). Design Keyboard Focus Indicators When navigating with the keyboard, the focused item must be visually distinctive. Design a “Skip to Main Content” Link Skip A keyboard accessible link for users to skip navigation should be at the top of the page. Ensure Link Text Makes Sense on Its Own Click Here Avoid “Click Here” or other ambiguous link text, such as “More” or “Continue”. Design Usable Widgets and Controls Dialogs, tooltips, menus, carousels, etc. must be easy to use and accessible. Use Animation, Video, and Audio Carefully Provide play/pause buttons. Avoid distracting movement. Don’t Convey Content Using Only Color Users may override or may not be able to see differences between colors. Design Accessible Form Controls First Name Ensure form controls have descriptive labels, Submit instructions, and error messages.
  • July 11, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: State Board of Regents FROM

    July 11, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: State Board of Regents FROM

    TAB A State Board of Regents Phone 801.321.7101 Board of Regents Building, The Gateway Fax 801.321.7199 60 South 400 West TDD 801.321.7130 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1284 www.higheredutah.org July 11, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: State Board of Regents FROM: David L. Buhler SUBJECT: General Consent Calendar The Commissioner recommends approval of the following items on the Regents’ General Consent Calendar: A. Minutes 1. Minutes of the Board Meeting May 18, 2018, Salt Lake Community College, Salt Lake City, Utah (Attachment). B. Grant Proposals 1. University of Utah – University of California San Francisco; “Pediatric TB”; $1,120,922. Swomitra Kumar Mohanty, Principal Investigator. 2. University of Utah – NIH Natl Ctr Complementary & Altrn Medcn; “Blueberry Derived Metabolites”; $1,444,408/ Amamdj Babu Velayutham, Principal Investigator. 3. University of Utah – US Department of Energy; “MUSE”; $16,000,000. Darryl P Butt, Principal Investigator. 4. University of Utah – US Department of Energy; “Radioelement Halide EFRC”; $1,199,998. Michael F Simpson, Principal Investigator. 5. University of Utah – NIH National Institute on Aging; “Supiano R01 April 2018”; $2,108,474. Katherine Perry Supiano, Principal Investigator. 6. University of Utah – DHHS National Institutes of Health; “Multiplexed PTP Probes”; $1,906,250. Amy M Barrios, Principal Investigator. 7. University of Utah – DHHS National Institutes of Health; “Virtual Coaching”; $2,442,813. Rebecca L Utz, Principal Investigator. 8. University of Utah – American Cancer Society Inc; “4-2-18_Kirchhoff_ACS”; $1,219,546. Ann C Kirchhoff, Principal Investigator. General Consent Calendar July 20, 2018 Page 2 9. University of Utah – NIH National Institute of Mental Health; “Bilder Resubmission 4.10.18”; $3,812,500.