MeAC – Measuring Progress of eAccessibility in Europe

Policy approaches based on equality / anti-discrimination legislation have considerable potential in the eAccessibility field. Such approaches can provide people with disabilities – individually or collectively – with a right to seek redress if they are confronted with inaccessible ICT equipment or services, either in relation to ICT-based goods and services in a general sense or in relation to specific usage contexts.

Legislation/regulations

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 and its Amendment Act 2005 covers a wide scope including access to employment, education, goods and services, transport and housing. The law specificially covers access to means of communication and to information, and a related Code of Practice and other guidance specifically mentions ICTs. Redress mechanisms are provided, including support through the Disability Rights Commission (DRC), now the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR).

Goods and services equality

Part 3 of the DDA deals with, among other things, access to services including services that involve access to and use of means of communication, and access to and use of information services. The Code of Practice to Part 3 of the Act, developed to give guidance on implementation, specifically refers to telecommunications and broadcasting organisations as being service providers covered by the Act. The Code also gives examples of websites and call centres as being the services that providers should ensure are accessible. Police and fire services are also legally obliged to make their intranets accessible.

Employment equality

The DDA covers access to employment and amendments to the Act in 2004 implemented most of the provisions of the EU Employment Equality Directive. Under the DDA, an employer has a duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to employment practice and premises if these place a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. The guidance documentation for employers gives specific mention of and a high profile to accessibility of ICTs as examples of reasonable adjustments (“getting or modifying equipment such as a CCTV, voice-activated computer software or a telephone adapted with an amplifier; translating instructions and reference manuals into accessible formats, such as large print and audio cassette”). It also makes specific reference to available public supports for equipment.

Education

Part 4 of the DDA as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001 provides for obligations for both pre and post-16 education and contains requirements on the provision of Assistive Technology. Education providers are required to provide auxiliary aids as a “reasonable adjustment” to ensure that individuals with a disability are not discriminated against. Making a reasonable adjustment has been interpreted to include the supply of equipment and adapting facilities, such as those in laboratories, or library or IT facilities. The updated Code of Practice to post-16 education states that responsible bodies should be continually anticipating the requirements of disabled people in the context of making “reasonable adjustments” and gives as an example a situation where a university encourages its lecturers to put lecture notes on the institution’s intranet.

There is a requirement through SENDA for schools to plan for the provision of Assistive Technology, but the situation is variable as there is no standardized assessment or training schemes.

It seems that there are no direct statutory obligations on eAccessibility in the Higher Education sector, although disabled students are entitled to a Disabled Student’s Allowance to help with the cost of education, including the cost of specialist equipment.

Impacts – cases and other activity

Although the DDA seems to have given impetus to activity on eAccessibility in some fields, there does not appear to have been much direct attention to eAccessibility as of yet and there is little or no case law in this area. The lack of definition of ‘eAccessibility’ has been pointed to as an issue in this regard.

To avoid SPAM-abuse of the e-mail address the ‘@’ sign was written as ‘a t’ and each dot ‘.’ as ‘d o t’.
Please change the recipient address of your message accordingly. We apologize for this inconvenience.