ITU Workshop on Accessibility October 13-14-15, Bamako, Mali

1. The G3ict – ITU Toolkit for Policy Makers on e-Accessibility & Service Needs for Persons with DisabilitiesBy Axel LebloisExecutive Director, G3ict ITU Workshop on Accessibility October 13-14-15, Bamako, Mali

2. Agenda Objectives of the e-Accessibility Toolkit How the Toolkit was developed Main features and example of resources available The Self-assessment Framework and Index

3. e-Accessibility Toolkit for Policy Makers - Objectives • Provide resources to facilitate the implementation of the ICT accessibility agenda of the CRPD at national level: • Global repository of good practices • Technical and standardization references • Policy making tools • Knowledge base for capacity building programs serving Regulators, Government Agencies, Disabled Persons Organizations and Civil Society

4. Toolkit Features • Delivered on-line • Designed with requirements of policy makers at its centre • Global collaborative effort • Does not “re-invent the wheel” but relies on best available resources • Ability for users to suggest additions and modifications to the Toolkit Editors

5. Toolkit Editorial Committee Dónal Rice NDA/CEUD, NUI-Galway (Editorial Coordinator) Asenath Mpatwa, ITU-D Ambassador Luis Gallegos, G3ict Axel Leblois, G3ict Clara Luz Alvarez Tamas Babinszki, Even Grounds Kevin Carey, RNIB/World Blind Union Anne-Rivers Forcke, IBM Corporation Rune Halvorsen, NOVA Inmaculada Placienca Porrero, European Commission Felicity Rawlins, IBM Corporation Andrea Saks, ITU Licia Sbattella, Politecnico di Milano Susan Schorr, ITU James Thurston, Microsoft Bob English, TecAccess

6. Contributors J. E. Baker, L. McArthur, J. Silva, Jutta Treviranus, Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto • David Baylor, WBU • Hardik Bhatt and Karen Tamley, City of Chicago • Fernando Botelho, Literacy Bridge & Mais Diferenças • Gerald Craddock, NDA/CEUD, Ireland • Bob English, TecAccess • Jonathan Freeman, WGBH • Angela Garabagiu, Council of Europe • Larry Goldberg, WGBH • Bill Joley, International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI) • Mike Jones, Wireless RERC, Georgia Institute of Technology • Hiroshi Kawamura, DAISY Consortium • Ben Lippincott, Wireless RERC, Georgia Institute of Technology • Mike Paciello, The Paciello Group • Helen Petrie, University of York • David Sloan, University of Dundee • Mike Starling, WBU • Karen Tamley, City of Chicago • Gregg Vanderheiden, University of Winsconsin-Madison • Carlos Velasco, Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technologies (FIT) • Cynthia Waddell, International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI) • Chuck Wilsker, Telework Coalition • Gottfried Zimmermann, Access Technologies   

7. Web site: www.e-accessibilitytoolkit.org (UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNTIL DECEMBER 2009)

11. Example: Television Overview

12. Example: Television Accessibility Resources Closed captioning, sub-titling and sign language—Definitions / process—Features most desired by persons with disabilities—Applicable standards—Sample of regulations Video Description Services—Definitions / process—Features most desired by persons with disabilities—Applicable standards—Sample of regulations Transition to Digital Television: IPTV and Convergent Media —IPTV and Web video accessibility—DTV / IPTV equipment, interface and controls—IPTV and Web video accessibility standards—Sample of regulations

13. Video Description Services,Sample of regulations U.S. Federal Communications Commission: Video Description Orders, Public Notices, Notices, Press Releases and FactsheetSummary: Fact sheets, reports and regulations from a 2000 FCC rulemaking, reversed in 2002, requiring U.S. broadcasters to describe 4 hours of programming per week. Reference: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/video-description.html Key words: Video Description; Regulations; HistoryTarget audiences: Policy makers; Broadcasters; Advocates House of Representatives (USA):  H.R.6320 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 2008Summary: Proposed U.S. legislation mandating accessible IPTV and internet content (captions, descriptions), and accessible menu guides and user interfaces. Reinstates overturned TV description requirements. Reference: http://www.coataccess.org/node/32 Key words: IPTV; Accessibility; LegislationTarget audiences: Policy makers; Broadcasters; Advocates   Canadian-Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC):  Broadcasting Public Notice: CRTC 2007-101Summary: Canadian requirements for television program distributors (broadcast, cable, satellite) to carry video description in their signals and ensure pass through to the consumer.Reference: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2007/pb2007-54.htm Key words: Video description; Regulations; ComplaintsTarget audiences: Policy makers; Broadcasters; Advocates  Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC): Access to TV for persons visual impairmentsSummary: Synospis of what description is, who uses it, Canadian description providers and links to regulations. Reference: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/INFO_SHT/b322.htm Key words: Video Description; RegulationsTarget audiences: Policy makers; Broadcasters; Advocates

14. Case Studies Database

15. Self-Assessment FrameworkPurpose • ICT accessibility dispositions are embedded and scattered in a large number of articles of the CRPD • Check list established to: • Review compliance • Consensus building • Prioritize action steps • Organized to help shape policy • Digital Accessibility and Inclusion Index developed from this check list to measure progress and compare countries experiences

16. How was the Self Assessment Framework Developed? Review of the CRPD to identify all provisions that included the terms: communications, technology, information or information services, accommodation, and access, accessible, and accessibility. 3 “legs”: An exhaustive listing which included the “self-assessment” items (50 items) 11 items reflecting the basic capacity of a country to implement those provisions identified in #1 A measurement framework (10 items) of the systemic and/or individual impact(s) of a country’s fulfillment of the ICT provisions of the CRPD

17. Samples of Data Points – 1st Leg: “Country Commitment” Do the Country’s laws and/or policies affirmatively promote the provision of reasonable accommodations vis-a-vis ICT or AT in order to ensure equality for persons with disabilities? Does Country law or policy exist which requires signage in all public buildings and facilities be posted in Braille? Does the Country have laws, policies or programs that ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy access to television programs, films, theatre and other cultural activities, in accessible formats?

18. Sample of Data Points – 2nd Leg: “Country Capacity to Implement” Is there a governmental body or department responsible for disability matters in the country? Is there a yearly amount for the support of DPOs (disabled persons organizations) from the Country working in the field of digital access for persons with disabilities? Are there any special items, topics in the k-12 school curricula about digital access and persons with -disabilities? Are there any common indicators developed by the Country to evaluate the status of digital access by persons with disabilities?

19. Sample of Data Points – 3rd Leg:“Country Implementation and Impact” Are programs in place to facilitate the usage of telephony by persons with disabilities (relay services, accessible public phones, accessible handsets etc? Are government web sites accessible? Are assistive technologies available to students with disabilities at major universities? Are there accessible public electronic kiosks or ATMs deployed in the country?

20. Consensus Building Benefits: Opportunity to use the framework to establish a dialogue among multiple stakeholders Ensure that everyone views the Self-assessment results in an objective and holistic perspective Agree on strengths and areas for improvement and Prioritize areas for improvement that will be taken into further action planning

21. The Self-Assessment Framework: A Dashboard for Policy Makers • Analyze country commitments • Identify capacity and infrastructure for implementation • Assess country’s implementation and impact • Draw links between commitment and implementation/impact • Establish “gaps” and rank items based on feedback from disabled persons organizations and other stakeholders • Generate recommendations and action plan via consensus • Compare results with other countries with Digital Accessibility and Inclusion Index in future years

22. The G3ict Initiative is made possible thanks to the generous support of the following organizations: INSTITUTIONAL CO-HOSTS Thank You For more information: axel_leblois@g3ict.org