Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe: 2011 Annual Report
Comparison of the actual level and progress of eAccessibility across countries and across sectors
Download 4.79 Mb.
|
Comparison of the actual level and progress of eAccessibility across countries and across sectorsThe radar chart shows the differences between the countries analysed in both the overall level of eAccessibility and the degree of implementation of eAccessibility policies. It also shows the correspondence between policy measures and progress made in the level of accessibility. As seen in the chapter on the impact of eAccessibility activities on the current level of eAccessibility, this correspondence is not very close, and it is not always those countries that, according to the information collected, have made a greater effort in implementing accessibility policies that have been most successful in the real level of technological accessibility. If we disregard territorial differences and break down the data by technology, the correspondence between the effort of implementing policies and levels of accessibility achieved is seen more clearly, whether we consider all the countries studied or if we look at the EU countries as a whole. This correspondence is not clear, however, when we consider the aggregate of the non-EU reference countries. Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the countries analysed Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. All countries. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. EU countries. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Non-EU countries. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages The country profiles represented on the radar charts set out below, differ greatly, and show that there are a variety of situations characterised by greatly varying degrees of implementation of accessibility policies which do not always correspond to the levels of accessibility achieved. There are several reasons for this lack of correspondence. One is that it takes some time for the implementation of a particular measure to take effect on levels of accessibility. The policy questionnaire gathers information about the current state of implementation of policies, but does not report when such policies were implemented. A possible additional reason may be lack of awareness on the existing eAccessibility policies by technology product or service providers as well as users. As a future action, a possible investigation on the awareness level of eAccessibility policies by all the involved actors and players (policy makers, decision makers, public authority, technology product/service providers, as well as users) can be examined as well as any actions needed for eAccessibility policies awareness. Another reason is that, in many cases, technologies are developed in, and for, a global market, and in this context, it is not surprising that the effects of policies implemented locally may be blurred. In fact, policies implemented in the country in which a technology or product is developed or manufactured may have much more influence on the accessibility levels measured in the country this product is consumed or used in, than those prevailing in this latter country. In the Czech Republic, there is a fairly accurate correspondence between the rates of implementation of policies and levels of accessibility in the fields of television, home environment and public procurement, while there is less correspondence in the areas of assistive technology, Internet, telephony and educational environment. Data from Denmark show low implementation of accessibility policies in the domains of computers, television and urban environment, without any noticeable correspondence between policy indicators and accessibility levels. In France, the observed degree of implementation of the accessibility policies is generally low, except in the fields of telephony, Internet and television, which can be described as medium. No correspondence can be seen between the degree of policy implementation and the accessibility level reached except in the domains of telephony, television and urban environment. Germany has an extremely diverse degree of policy implementation, with exemplary levels in assistive technologies and very low rates for computers, television, home environment, educational environment and telephony. The levels of accessibility reached are generally better, except in Internet and urban environment. The degree of implementation of eAccessibility policy is very low in Greece. Accessibility levels, except in assistive technologies, Internet, computers and home environment, are also very low. In Hungary, accessibility policies have developed in some areas such as public procurement, assistive technologies, Internet or computers, while the levels of accessibility achieved are generally lower and are poorly correlated with the efforts made in the implementation of accessibility policies.
Only in the areas of Internet and assistive technologies has there been any significant degree of implementation of accessibility policies in Italy. However, the accessibility levels achieved are medium or high, especially in assistive technologies, public procurement, telephony and educational environment. Portugal recorded medium to high levels both in the implementation of accessibility policies and accessibility levels achieved except in the fields of computers and home environment, where both are very low, and in television and Internet, where efforts to implement accessibility policies have not been matched with a corresponding level of accessibility. In Spain, the level of implementation of the policies of accessibility is medium or high in all areas analysed. Accessibility levels, although in general somewhat lower, are also medium to high, except in the field of educational environment. Sweden recorded mixed results both in the implementation of policies and levels of accessibility but, in general, somewhat lower technology results than expected from the medium level of policy implementation. The areas of Internet and home environment are less developed. The correspondence between policy indicators and levels of accessibility is low in the Netherlands, except in the fields of assistive technology and the urban environment. In the United Kingdom, the indicators referring to the degree of implementation of policies and the level of accessibility are consistent, except in computers and public procurement. Accessibility levels achieved are medium to high, except in the domain of home environment. Reference countries outside the EU (Australia, Canada, Norway and USA) also show differences in the correspondence between the degree of implementation of accessibility policies and accessibility levels. Canada stands out for the accessibility levels achieved in the domains of computers, assistive technologies and educational and urban environments. Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Czech Republic. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Denmark. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. France. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Germany. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Greece. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Hungary. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Ireland. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Italy. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Portugal. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Spain. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Sweden. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. The Netherlands. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. United Kingdom. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Australia. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Canada. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. Norway. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages Figure . Correspondence between eAccessibility level and the degree of eAccessibility policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. USA. Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages . Table . eAccessibility Status and Policy status17
Source: Own Elaboration, 2011 Unit: Percentages
|