International outlook: GermanyA regulative approach towards

web accessibility addressing the public & commercial domains

Lutz Kubitschkeempirica

Funka Accessibility Days, Stockholm April 18-19, 2012

2

Content

1. In what way is web accessibility regulated in Germany ?

2. What impacts can be observed ?

3. Are there any lessons that could be learned ?

3

The regulative approach

4

General equality legislation

Anti-discrimination legislation enacted in 2002 has for the first time made direct reference to accessibility of ICT in Germany (Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz – BGG)

“free of barrier are structural and other facilities, means of transport, technical basic commodities, systems of information processing,…in case they are accessible and usable for people with disabilities in “common usual way”, without particular complication and generally without help from outside.” (§ 4 BGG )

5

Regulation by means of Federal Ordinance

Two key requirements concerning web offerings (§ 11 BBG):

Federal government bodies and regional government bodies implementing federal law must ensure that their internet offerings can generally be used by people with disabilities

By means of so called ‘target agreements’, the federal government shall work towards achieving that commercial web offerings become accessible to people with disabilities

The Ministry of the Interior in agreement with the Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs stipulates implementation requirements: Barrier-free Information Technology Ordinance (BITV)

6

BITV’s requirements on public web sites

What : Internet offerings directed towards the general public Intranet offerings directed towards the general public Graphical programme surfaces directed towards the public

How :

List of 14 requirements based on WCAG 1.0

To be reviewed after three years

When :

Existing web sites by 31st December 2003 New web sites by 31st December 2005

7

Flanking measures

Funding of projects directed towards supporting the implementation process, e.g.:

ABI: Information portal, workshops/conference, ‘reporting point’

BIK: Voluntary compliance testing (‚BITV-Test‘)

Federal Office of ICT Security (BSI): eGov Handbook

8

Regulative ‘knock-on’ effects

BITV concerns the federal governance level only

Regional governments have adopted own equality laws, partly referring to BITV

BITV 2.0 enacted in Sept 2011: alignment with WCAG 2.0 (by March

2012 and Sept. 2012) Basic information in German sign

language and simple language at home page: content in general, navigation, further information items available in sign/simple language (by March 2014)

9

Regulating commercial web sites – a consensus based approach

Accessibility in the commercial domain is regulated by so called ‘target agreements’.

What it is:A legally defined process (§5 BGG) aimed at arriving at contractual agreements about products/service/venue accessibility between accredited disability organisations and commercial enterprises or umbrella organisations

How it works:Accredited disability organisations have the right to demand the starting of contract negotiations with commercial enterprises or commercial umbrella organisations

10

The negotiation process

User organisations receive accreditation by Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affaires. An advisory board can also make proposals (Mitglieder des Beirates für die Teilhabe behinderter Menschen)

Disability organisations demanding the staring of a negotiation process must indicate this by means of a central register

Successfully concluded ‘target agreements’ must be published in central register

No direct legal sanction in case of unsuccessful negotiation

11

Content of target agreement

Three obligatory core elements:

Stipulation of the parties concluding the contract as well as the ambit and the period of validity of the contract

Stipulation of minimum requirements on how services/products have to be adapted with a view tot make them accessible tot people with disabilities

Stipulation of a time plan for the implementation of the agreed minimum requirements

Potentially, agreed penalties in case of non-compliance or delayed implementation of the time plan

12

Observable impacts

13

Impacts on public web sites

Lobbying campaign „Implement BITV Now !“ lauched by disability organsiations in 2006 due to disapointing outcomes

MeAC II study revealed moderate ranking position when compared with other countries

3029

3924

1732

3116

1927

2262

1622

4733

393636

22

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

Source: MeAC II , 2011

14

Impact on commercial web sites

No. of published target agreements (as of 31.04.12)

Announced: 1

Under negotiation: 18

Closed: 32

Web related target agreements:

09.08.2005: Accessibility of internet presence of Pfizer, Germany

11.05.2006: Accessibility of internet presence of a regional craftsmen association (Kreishandwerkerschaft Rureifel).

Competence centre (BKB) set up by disability organisations in 2008

15

Lessons potentially to be learned

16

Regulation vs. capacity building

(n=5)

(n=8)

(n=6)(n=9)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

None Supports only Laws/regulations only Both

Bas

is a

cces

sib

ility

of

go

vern

men

tal w

ebsi

tes

(WC

AG

Lev

el A

au

tom

atic

ch

eckp

oin

ts o

nly

)(in

de

x sc

ore

)

Policy situation: presence of strong components(policy score)

Source: MeAC II , 2011

17

Sustainability

Year

Total sites passing

automatic only and/or automatic

and manual

Number of sites which also passed in

previous year

Number of sited which newly

pass

2007 17 n/a n/a

2008 24* 13 10

2009 23 14 9

Source: WCAG 2.0 study, 2009* One site could not be tested in 2007 due to technical problem

18

Conclusions

Need for sustained effort over time (a 'culture change'), law just gives powerful starting point

Need for coherent overall strategy (many people producing content, with little coordination)

Need for ongoing supportive measures addressing lack of awareness and limited skills

Need for empowering disability organisations to negotiate target agreements on equal terms

Need for regular outcome monitoring (‘churn effect’)