MeAC – Measuring Progress of eAccessibility in Europe

Below are the results of the MeAC eAccessibility status measurement for the United States of America.

Websites

The MeAC survey assessed the accessibility of a sample of 12 key websites in each of the EU Member States, as well as in the USA, Canada and Australia. These included 6 key public websites (national government, national parliament, and key ministries such as social, employment, health and education) and 6 key sectoral/commercial websites (e.g. railways, TV, newspapers, retail banking). All websites were evaluated against WCAG 1.0 Level A criteria, including both automatic and manual evaluation. (For methodological details see Annex II of the project report).

The results for the USA, as measured in 2008, were as follows:

• 2 out of the 5 selected public websites passed the automatic evaluation
• None of the private/sectoral websites passed even the automatic evaluation

Telecoms

Utilization of telecoms services and equipment can pose a variety of accessibility challenges for different disability groups. For the purposes of the MeAC study the availability of a number of selected accessibility provisions was surveyed in each of the 27 countries. In the USA, the following situation was identified in 2008:

• The main emergency number (112 or other) was directly accessible by means of text telephones
• Both a text relay service and a video relay service were available
• Both of the two main mobile telephony operators provided eAccessibility-related information to customers with disabilities via their websites. Both also offered mobile phone models that are labelled as hearing aid compatible via their online sales channels
• Both of the two main land line telephony operators provided eAccessibility-related information to customers with disabilities via their websites. One operator offered models that are labelled as hearing aid compatible via its online sales channel

Broadcasting

To ensure that people with disabilities can access and enjoy TV broadcast programs in the same manner than everyone else, a variety of accessibility provisions need to be made available, including subtitling and sign language interpretation for people with hearing impairments and audio description for people with vision impairments. As regards their availability in the USA, the following was found out by the MeAC study in 2008:

• The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) provides programs with subtitling. In terms of volumes provided in 2007, these were estimated to amount to 85% of its overall programming
• No programs were broadcast by PBS with signing in 2007
• Some programs with audio description were provided by PBS in 2007. In terms of volumes provided these were estimated to amount to 20% of its overall programming
• Of the two main commercial TV channels, in 2007
  • both provided programs with subtitling. In terms of volumes, these were estimated to amount to 85% of their overall programming
  • neither provided any programs with signing
  • both provided some programs with audio description, however information on volumes was not available

Self- service terminals

The utilisation of standard self-service terminals can pose various accessibility challenges to different groups. In the banking sector, for instance, automatic teller machines (ATMs) which are designed to meet the needs of vision impaired people are now being manufactured. Usually referred to as “talking” ATMs, such machines have a voice output option via headphones and/or external loud speakers.

As regards the availability of such banking terminals in the USA, the following situation was found by the MeAC study in 2008:

• Both of the two main retail banks operating in the country have installed talking ATMs. By mid 2008, 10,000 of 16,000 ATMs deployed by one bank had “talking” capability. All 6,800 ATMs operated by the other bank were “talking” machines. Both banks provided information on the location of “talking” ATMs via their website
• Other banks had deployed “talking” ATMs in the US at that time as well

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.