MeAC 2: overall results - presentation at INCOM meeting
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
0 j'aime•508 vues
“Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe 2010-2011” MEAC 2 Study General presentation on relevant results, specific reports and recommendations for future studies on monitoring eAccessibility
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Contents]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à MeAC 2: overall results - presentation at INCOM meeting
Similaire à MeAC 2: overall results - presentation at INCOM meeting (20)
Plus de Jose Angel Martinez Usero
Plus de Jose Angel Martinez Usero (17)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
MeAC 2: overall results - presentation at INCOM meeting
- 1. Study on Monitoring eAccesibility in Europe Meeting on e-accessibility studies, 16 April 2010 Jose Angel Martinez Usero Project Coordinator INCOM Meeting: Thursday, 27 October 2011 Dr. José Angel Martínez Usero Coordinator of MEAC 2 Study “ Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe 2010-2011” MEAC 2 Study
- 7. Selection of technologies to be monitored DEVICES/SERVICES MeAC/NEW TELEPHONY: Fixed MeAC Mobile MeAC Special telephones (text and videotelephone) MeAC Mobile Web New INTERNET: Web MeAC COMPUTERS: Software MeAC Hardware MeAC MEDIA: Analogue television MeAC Digital television European Commission HOMES: Digital homes European Commission Telecare New URBAN ENVIRONMENT: ATMs MeAC Vending machines MeAC Virtual kiosks European Commission Digital information panels New EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT: Electronic books MeAC proposal Elearning platforms New ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Hardware MeAC proposal Software MeAC proposal
- 9. Survey to user’s organisation Consultation to relevant organisations in order to get feedback on each technology category. Cooperation with ANEC, EDF and AGE Benchmarking Approach based in BSC and hypothesis Research methods
- 11. Study main outcomes http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/BSC/
- 12. BSC perspectives
- 14. Automatic reports From the technology or policy indicators.
- 15. Automatic reports Combining technology and policy indicators
- 17. Dynamic reports Step 2: Chose the category/ies, countries and years
- 18. Dynamic reports Step 3. Get the dynamic table and rotate
- 21. Benchmarking reports - example
- 23. Specific reports
- 27. Global status of eAccessibility technologies in EU and non-EU countries. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
- 28. Global status of eAccessibility technologies, by country. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
- 29. Status of eAccessibility policy in EU and non-EU countries. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
- 30. Status of eAccessibility policy, by country. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
- 31. Correspondence between eAccessibility level and policy implementation in the countries analysed. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
- 32. Correspondence between eAccessibility level and policy implementation in the technological domains analysed. 2011 Source: Own elaboration, 2011. Unit: Percentages
- 36. Thanks for your attention Dr. Jose Angel Martínez Usero [email_address]
Notes de l'éditeur
- The synthetic index of eAccessibility technologies scored in 2011 an average of 41% for all the 13 EU countries analysed as a whole and 48% for the 4 reference non-EU countries. The domains with the highest degree of eAccessibility implementation in these EU Member States are Assistive Technologies , 74%, and incorporation of eAccessibility criteria in public procurement , 52%. Telephony , Computers , Urban Environment and Educational Environment have a medium level of accessibility implementation in EU countries overall (values from 36% to 44%), a lower average than that observed for the non-EU reference countries. The lowest levels of accessibility were registered for Internet , television and home environment technologies. In all these domains, except television, the results of the EU countries were considerably lower than in the non-EU reference countries.
- There is a broad range of variation in the accessibility status in the EU countries studied, ranging from 23% in Hungary to 57% in the UK . In addition to the UK, the best-placed EU countries are Ireland , Spain , the Netherlands and Italy , with scores ranging between 48% and 54%. Reference countries also show a broad range of variation in their scores, ranging from 32% in Australia to 63% in Canada .
- The synthetic index of eAccessibility policy yields for all EU countries analysed, 43% , four points lower than the score for the non-EU reference countries. The domains in which there is a greater degree of implementation of eAccessibility policy in EU countries are assistive technology, provision of reasonable accommodation in employment , enforcement of public policy , accessibility to Internet , incorporation of eAccessibility criteria in public procurement and ensuring non-discrimination in access to technology . All these domains scored above average. The telephony accessibility policy has a medium level of development, at 41%, two points lower than the eAccessibility policy average. Other aspects, such as computer accessibility , home , urban and educational environment , and television accessibility are less developed, and scored below average.
- Spain , USA and UK are the countries with the highest scores . At the other end of the scale, countries such as Ireland , Italy and Greece , have surprisingly low scores .
- This radar chart shows the differences between eAccessibility status and level of implementation of eAccessibility policy in each of the countries analyzed The level of implementation of eAccessibility policy is higher than the eAccessibility status in Czech Republic, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the UK and USA . The eAccessibility status is higher than the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy in Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway . In the rest of countries there are no significant differences between the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy and the eAccessibility status
- This radar chart shows the differences between eAccessibility status and level of implementation of eAccessibility policy in each of the technologies analyzed The level of implementation of eAccessibility policy is higher than the eAccessibility status in Internet . The eAccessibility status is higher than the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy in Computers and Assistive Technologies . In the rest of technology domains there are no significant differences between the level of implementation of of eAccessibility policy and the eAccessibility status
- Maintain a Balanced Score Card (BSC) to store and exploit the results. Foster research in the field – data can be constructed dynamically and downloaded. Ensure the accessibility of online questionnaires for experts and users organisations. Participation of experts with disability . Translate the survey for the users ’ organisations to national languages. Encourage participation and better rate of response.
- Interaction with actors Web accessibility assessment centralised in an organisation and just punctual interaction with actors. Consistency of the results . Enhance and promote the figure of national expert (paid). The number of participating experts from each country be increased (team). Motivated and expert team . Ensure the collaboration of EDF, AGE and ANEC . Successful data gathering.