Policies shaping the Web in Europe

Gilles Kahn

W3C10 Europe

3 June 2004

Policies shaping the Web in Europe

Eric Velleman (Bartimeus) - Web Accessibility perspective

Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin (Internet Rights Forum) - Internet Policy: Overcoming Contradictions

Peter Brown (European Parliament) - Policies shaping the Web in EuropeStandards, the Public Sector and the Web

Moderator: Gilles Kahn (INRIA)

Web Accessibility perspective

eInclusion, Europe and WAI, Netherlands best-practice and harmonization

Eric Velleman, Director, Bartimeus Accessibility Foundation

Demographics for Accessibility

• Total 730 M people in Europe in 2005
• 80 mobiles/100p
• Domain names: 52,914,393
• 37 M persons with disability, excluding RSI and cognitive disability.
• By 2020: 25% population over 60 (largest increase in 75+)

Source: Internet World Stats

People use the Web

What are they all looking for?

Shopping online

Online government

• 93% of EU member states have a website
• 90% of all countries online offer information, databanks, legislation online
• 30% offers online services

But are they accessible??

Google WAI impact *)

• 142,000,000 for guidelines web
• 14,100,000 for guidelines web accessibility
• 7,270,000 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
• 5,700,000 for Web Accessibility Initiative

• 215,000 for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
• 144,000 for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines

Useful content

Reasons for not using the Internet: lack of content

The archive.org

Why Use W3C Accessibility Guidelines (and Valid Code)

Lessons learnt in the Netherlands

Accessibility is good news (1/2)

• No need for text only sites, everyone gets the full experience of your site including images and multimedia
• Easily changable 'Look-and-feel‘
• Up to 60% decr.pagesize possible *)
• Optimized for Search engines
• Futureproof: Conforms to standards

*) Actual decrease in size of main website of ministry of Health Netherlands.
IBM saved up to 50 percent with their main graphic site.…

Accessibility is good news (2/2)

• Works better in old and future browsers
• Ready for possible legislation and certification
• More ready for your mobile devices
• One site for multiple platforms is easier
• Faster loading time
• Sites available in case of calamities

Web Accessibility Harmonization in Europe

Logos Related to Web Accessibility

Google: 778,000 hits for quality mark web accessibility

European Answers for an Inclusive Future

Adoption and harmonization of W3C/WAI standards

European information Society i2010

1. Promoting a borderless EU information space
   • Internet, tv and telephone over the same infrastructure
   • Action plan for general framework for the digital services economy (guidelines and best-practice–3jrs)
2. Stimulating innovation by investment in research
   • Doubling IST funding for FP7
3. Making the European Information Society as inclusive and accessible as possible

Source: Speech: i2010: How to make Europe’s Information Society competitive. Viviane Reding. Brussels, 22 February 2005

EC eAccessibility for 2005

Objective: achieving an information Society for all

• Three pillars:
  • Accessibility requirements in public procurement
  • Certification and assessment (self declaration, 3rd party, voluntary, mandatory, etc.)
  • Explore legal measures
• Instruments:
  • Harmonisation (voluntary)
  • Help self-regulation
• Review situation in 2006
  • Possibly other measures including legislation.

Source: Results of online consultation: Mrs. Viviane Reding

EC eAccessibility for 2005

• Complementary actions:
  • Foster standardisation/ Increase skills/ Design for all/ Raise awareness/ Benchmark and monitor/ Research and technological development
  • Web accessibility: Need to assess and certify accessibility of public web sites
  • Member states websites accessible by end of 2001/2003 ?

Source: Results of online consultation: Mrs. Viviane Reding and Source: 25 September 2001agreed by European Parliament

The WAB Cluster

FP6/IST project (2003-2006) on eInclusion:

• WAB Cluster - Web Accessibility Benchmarking (WAB) Cluster, with a close coordination with WAI. The cluster goal is to define a unified web evaluation methodology (UWEM) for conformance to the WCAG guidelines.
  • European Internet Accessibility Observatory (EIAO), in relation to the 2002 Council's request for obtaining comparable data across Member States;
  • Supporting the creation of an eAccessibility Mark (Support-EAM), in relation with the 2002 Council's request to investigate such a labelling - the project has triggered a CEN Workshop for discussing the approaches;
  • Benchmarking Tools for the Web (BenToWeb)

Example of a Quality Mark and evaluation scheme Netherlands

Quality Mark drempelvrij.nl

• Priority 1
• Ensuring representation from all stakeholders
• TV attention, and umbrella orgs advertising

Identifying experts: Accessible builders/design companies

Identifying Experts: Accessible Web sites/best practice

Identify best practice examples

Summary of years of evaluation and raising awareness

Current state in most countries

Percentage of accessible Web sites

In the Netherlands:

• 1.000.000 websites
• 33 accessible

• Of 1000 websites researched, 2 valid code (education necessary)

Conformance: the magic tool

Dutch situation:

• 2 checkpoints: designers ‘please the test’
• 4 government websites had the Quality Mark (less than 0,4 percent of the total. Dec.2004)
• Monitor 2004 shows 2 of the 100 sites accessible

Action: Results of ‘WAI’ campaign in the Netherlands

• Awareness (85% population, 67% companies)
• 33% of participants are accessible
• 101 paying participants for quality mark
• Participants include multinational companies
• Significant increase in accessibility of websites
• 350 Declarations of Intent
• List of preferred suppliers
• Increasing demand for usability testing protocols

General conclusions (1/2)

• Positive role of WAI has been and is important
• Accessibility recommended by Council and Parliament not yet achieved.
• Need for methodologies to evaluate (and repair) public web sites.
• Cluster all efforts for accessible web sites around the W3C/WAI
• Harmonize standards for web accessibility in Europe.
• Awareness has considerably increased since 1997/9.
• Accessibility claims do not always show really accessible sites.

General conclusions (2/2)

• Accessibility has ROI
• Experienced designers and appropriate training are necessary.
• There is a need for accessibility support in web authoring and CMS tools to ease the development of accessible web sites.
• There is a need for official translations and formal recognition of the WAI guidelines as standard for use in national legislation (by Standardisation organisations with W3C)
• We need a mechanism to follow up, monitor and respond to requests and complaints from citizens with disabilities.
• We need research on different certification models (Wab cluster)

Brochure

Internet Policy: Overcoming Contradictions

Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, Chair – Internet Rights Forum

Outline

1. A Bit of History
2. The Rise of Regulatory Initiatives
3. Co-Regulation and the Internet Rights Forum
4. A Universal Approach to Complex Social Issues?

A Bit of History

From a small community to the digital avatar of our globalized societies

• Originally a community of specialists, expanding fast
  • 130 websites in 1993
  • 23,500 in 1995
  • 230,000 in 1996 (MIT)
• 1996 : Trouble ahead as Net usage booms (The end of innocence?)
  • France: Gubler case fires regulatory concerns
  • USA: Communication Decency Act as a failed attempt to regulate the Internet

Outline

1. A Bit of History
2. The Rise of Regulatory Initiatives
3. Co-Regulation and the Internet Rights Forum
4. A Universal Approach to Complex Social Issues?

The Rise of Regulatory Initiatives

From strict self-regulation …

• Climax in 1997?
  • FTC strongly endorses self-regulation on data protection …
  • … but finally notices a lack of uniformity in data protection practices
• Limits : self-regulation sometimes fails to satisfy objectives of common interest
  • FTC finally asked Congress for new laws
  • Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998

The Rise of Regulatory Initiatives

… to governmental intervention

• From 1998 onwards: an upsurge in legislation
  • USA: DMCA (1998), COPPA (1998), Can Spam Act (2003), …
  • EU: More than 15 directives in a few years
  • France: Laws on electronic signature and cryptography (2000), data retention (2001), electronic voting (2004), e-commerce (2004), data protection (2004), …
• Limits: Governmental intervention having little impact of some major issues
  • Spamming
  • Copyright enforcement issues …

Outline

1. A Bit of History
2. The Rise of Regulatory Initiatives
3. Co-Regulation and the Internet Rights Forum
4. A Universal Approach to Complex Social Issues?

Co-Regulation and the Internet Rights Forum

Co-regulation : 3 beliefs

• Internet as global social space / marketplace needs a form of regulation
• Complexity of the Internet challenges traditional modes of regulation, notably by the State
• A principle of shared responsibility

Co-Regulation and the Internet Rights Forum

The Internet Rights Forum

• A dedicated para-governmental organization, open to membership
• Organizes a permanent dialogue between all members of the Internet community on an equal basis
• 16 policy recommendations (IP, e-voting, child protection, tele-working…) adopted by consensus
  • To the Government as well as to business and users
  • Legislation, codes of conduct, technical recommendations

Co-Regulation and the Internet Rights Forum

Outline

1. A Bit of History
2. The Rise of Regulatory Initiatives
3. Co-Regulation and the Internet Rights Forum
4. A Universal Approach to Complex Social Issues?

A Universal Approach to Complex Social Issues?

Co-regulation stands out internationally

• The Internet Rights Forum launched the European Internet Co-regulation Network (EICN) in 2003
• Work by international organizations frequently refers to this regulatory strategy: WSIS-ITU, EC, Council of Europe…
• Europe a leader of the co-regulatory approach?

A Universal Approach to Complex Social Issues?

Co-regulation calls for cultural changes

• From the Governments
  • Accept open dialogue with other stakeholders
• From the private sector
  • Commit into real dialogue with all parties involved
• From the civil society / internet users
  • Organize themselves to participate constructively

Conclusion

Internet Policy:
Regulation through Open Dialogue

Policies shaping the Web in EuropeStandards, the Public Sector and the Web

Peter F Brown, Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group

Personal Introduction

• Official of the European Parliament…

  • 2000-2004, Head of service responsible for interoperability and information architecture

• …on secondment to the Austrian Government,…

  • Advisor on pan-European eServices and preparation of Austrian Presidency of EU Council in 2006

• Chair of “eGovernment Focus Group”…

  • Established by European standards body, CEN

• …and individual member of OASIS

  • Co-editor of SOA-RM Specification
  • Member of eGovernment TC

The “Teenage Web”

The difficult years ahead

• “Who am I? What am I?” - identity

• “Nobody understands me...” - semantics

• “Nobody cares” - trust

• Battles with authority and desire/need for independence - governance

Identity of Web resources

• What is a resource? What is a representation?

• Problem of conceptual layers

  • A “document”
  • A “service”
  • A “person”

• Everything needs identity, but be clear what every “thing” is...

• Taking ownership: value of "Namespaces" to delineate "Unformation Spaces"

Electronic Identity

• Separating concepts of:

  • “online identity”
  • Electronic ID

• Personal data and citizenship

  • Topical issue

• New contribution: “citizen-centred architecture”

  • Protecting personal data
  • Offering citizens choice
  • Federating identity management
  • From "DigitalMe" to "Digital I"

"Nobody understands me" - Semantics

• Dealing with misunderstandings: concerns about terminology

  • Structured domain knowledge vs AI: “I mean this” not “I think you mean that”
  • Semantic interoperability – issue of domain governance - think: "assets"
  • Building bridges between IT/R&D and users

• “Semantic Web” or semantic web?

  • Who else is involved?
  • Keep up the good work of liaisons

Trust

• Managing identity

  • Authority and assertions

• Dealing with abuse

  • Recourse and responsibility

• Building a web of trust

  • “I know who you are, but do you know who I am?”

Governance

• Interoperability doesn't just happen

  • Domain-based governance and standards
  • Acting in loco parentis: is someone responsible?

• Not something to fear something to embrace

  • Public sector can provide a reference anchor

• US and Europe

  • We do things differently - reflection of different values?
  • Doesn't mean one is right/wrong
  • Need to work together

Thank you and Good Luck!

• Peter F Brown
• peter.brown@cio.gv.at
• peter@justbrown.net
• www.XMLbyStealth.net

Next Session

Questions and Answers

Thank you all for making this a great celebration.

We look forward to seeing you at the W3C Twentieth Anniversary Celebration.

All W3C10 Europe Sessions