Upload
obelia
View
24
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The G3ict – ITU Toolkit for Policy Makers on e-Accessibility & Service Needs for Persons with Disabilities By Axel Leblois Executive Director, G3ict. ITU Workshop on Accessibility October 13-14-15, Bamako, Mali. Agenda. Objectives of the e-Accessibility Toolkit How the Toolkit was developed - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The G3ict – ITU Toolkit for Policy Makers The G3ict – ITU Toolkit for Policy Makers on e-Accessibility & Service Needs for on e-Accessibility & Service Needs for
Persons with DisabilitiesPersons with Disabilities
By Axel LebloisBy Axel LebloisExecutive Director, G3ictExecutive Director, G3ict
The G3ict – ITU Toolkit for Policy Makers The G3ict – ITU Toolkit for Policy Makers on e-Accessibility & Service Needs for on e-Accessibility & Service Needs for
Persons with DisabilitiesPersons with Disabilities
By Axel LebloisBy Axel LebloisExecutive Director, G3ictExecutive Director, G3ict
ITU Workshop on Accessibility
October 13-14-15, Bamako, Mali
Slide 2
AgendaAgendaAgendaAgenda
Objectives of the e-Accessibility Toolkit
How the Toolkit was developed Main features and example of
resources available The Self-assessment Framework
and Index
13 -15 October 2009 Incheon, Republic of Korea
Slide 3
e-Accessibility Toolkit for e-Accessibility Toolkit for Policy Makers - ObjectivesPolicy Makers - Objectivese-Accessibility Toolkit for e-Accessibility Toolkit for Policy Makers - ObjectivesPolicy 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
Slide 4
Toolkit FeaturesToolkit FeaturesToolkit FeaturesToolkit 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
Slide 5
Toolkit Editorial CommitteeToolkit Editorial CommitteeToolkit Editorial CommitteeToolkit 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
Slide 6
ContributorsContributorsContributorsContributorsJ. 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
Slide 7
(UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNTIL DECEMBER 2009)(UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNTIL DECEMBER 2009)
Web site:
www.e-accessibilitytoolkit.org
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Example: Television OverviewExample: Television OverviewExample: Television OverviewExample: Television Overview
Slide 12
Example: Television Accessibility Example: Television Accessibility ResourcesResourcesExample: Television Accessibility Example: Television Accessibility ResourcesResources
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
Slide 13
Video Description Services,Video Description Services,Sample of regulationsSample of regulationsVideo Description Services,Video Description Services,Sample of regulationsSample of regulations
U.S. Federal Communications Commission: Video Description Orders, Public Notices, Notices, Press Releases and Factsheet
Summary: 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 2008
Summary: 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 2007-101
Summary: 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 impairments
Summary: 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
13 -15 October 2009 Incheon, Republic of Korea
Slide 14
Case Studies DatabaseCase Studies DatabaseCase Studies DatabaseCase Studies Database
Slide 15
Self-Assessment FrameworkSelf-Assessment FrameworkPurposePurposeSelf-Assessment FrameworkSelf-Assessment FrameworkPurposePurpose
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
Slide 16
How was the Self Assessment How was the Self Assessment Framework Developed?Framework Developed?How was the Self Assessment How was the Self Assessment Framework Developed?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”:1. An exhaustive listing which included the “self-assessment”
items (50 items)
2. 11 items reflecting the basic capacity of a country to implement those provisions identified in #1
3. 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
Georgia: A Hub for Digital Accessibility InnovationAtlanta, Georgia, USA, 1 October 2008
Slide 17
Samples of Data Points – 1Samples of Data Points – 1stst Leg: Leg: “Country Commitment”“Country Commitment”Samples of Data Points – 1Samples of Data Points – 1stst Leg: Leg: “Country Commitment”“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?
Georgia: A Hub for Digital Accessibility InnovationAtlanta, Georgia, USA, 1 October 2008
Slide 18
Sample of Data Points – 2Sample of Data Points – 2ndnd Leg: Leg: “Country Capacity to Implement”“Country Capacity to Implement”Sample of Data Points – 2Sample of Data Points – 2ndnd Leg: Leg: “Country Capacity to Implement”“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?
Georgia: A Hub for Digital Accessibility InnovationAtlanta, Georgia, USA, 1 October 2008
Slide 19
Sample of Data Points – 3Sample of Data Points – 3rdrd Leg: Leg:“Country Implementation and Impact”“Country Implementation and Impact” Sample of Data Points – 3Sample of Data Points – 3rdrd Leg: Leg:“Country Implementation and Impact”“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?
Georgia: A Hub for Digital Accessibility InnovationAtlanta, Georgia, USA, 1 October 2008
Slide 20
Consensus Building Benefits:Consensus Building Benefits:Consensus Building Benefits: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
Georgia: A Hub for Digital Accessibility InnovationAtlanta, Georgia, USA, 1 October 2008
Slide 21
The Self-Assessment Framework: The Self-Assessment Framework: A Dashboard for Policy MakersA Dashboard for Policy MakersThe Self-Assessment Framework: The Self-Assessment Framework: A Dashboard for Policy MakersA 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
Georgia: A Hub for Digital Accessibility InnovationAtlanta, Georgia, USA, 1 October 2008
Slide 22
Georgia: A Hub for Digital Accessibility InnovationAtlanta, Georgia, USA, 1 October 2008
The G3ict Initiative is made possible thanks to the generous
support of the following organizations:
INSTITUTIONAL CO-HOSTS
Thank YouThank YouThank YouThank You
For more information: [email protected]