**ICT accessibility standardization and its use in policy measures**

May 23, 2007 version

Hajime Yamada

Toyo University, Japan

# **Executive Summary**

This paper consists of two parts.

In the first part, the use of standardization to promote ICT
accessibility is explained. Companies may find challenges to implement
accessibility functions in mainstream ICT products. Standardization
helps these companies by providing information about necessary
accessibility features in mainstream products, interfaces between
mainstream products and assistive technologies and so on.

ICT accessibility standards are used voluntarily in development of
mainstream products. Also they can be used as a mandatory requirement
for public procurement. Pubic procurement facilitates implementation of
accessibility functions in mainstream ICT products because of its
bargaining power.

In the second part, this paper first explains difficulties in
accessibility related conformity assessment. Qualitative nature of
requirements in accessibility standards makes determining product
conformance difficult.

Secondly, this paper provides alternative approaches of conformity
assessment that may overcome the difficulties. Proposed alternative
approaches are self declaration, self declaration with challenge or
post-market surveillance, best practitioner method, top runner approach,
third-party testing system, accessibility management system standard and
top management's declaration of accessibility policy.

Each of the alternative approaches has both pros and the cons. Since
alternatives are not mutually exclusive, mixed use of alternatives may
reduce social costs and improve the creditability of conformity
assessment simultaneously.

It is recommended to start considerations as soon as possible to meet
the necessity of developing an effective conformity assessment approach
for public procurement of accessible ICT products and services.

**Note 1**

> This paper is prepared to contribute to the work in Europe to
> implement accessibility requirements into public procurement through a
> study on accessibility standardization and conformity assessment.

**Note 2**

> This paper represents personal view of the author.

**Acknowledgement**

> This paper is developed based on informal discussions with experts at
> DATSCG, TEITAC and other occasions. The author expresses his
> appreciation to the contributing experts by listing their names; Mary
> Frances Laughton of Industry Canada, Inmaculada Placencia-Porrero of
> European Commission, Terry Weaver of General Service Administration,
> Alex Li of SAP, Ken Salaets of Information Technology Industry Council
> and Laura Ruby and James Thurston of Microsoft.

# **Table of contents**

# [**Executive Summary** 1](#executive-summary) {#executive-summary-1 .TOC-1}

#  {#section .TOC-1}

# [**Table of contents** 3](#table-of-contents) {#table-of-contents-3 .TOC-1}

#  {#section-1 .TOC-1}

# [**PART I** 4](#part-i) {#part-i-4 .TOC-1}

## [**1. Difficulty in implementing accessibility functions in mainstream products** 4](#difficulty-in-implementing-accessibility-functions-in-mainstream-products) {#difficulty-in-implementing-accessibility-functions-in-mainstream-products-4 .TOC-2}

### [**Difficulty in gathering needs** 4](#difficulty-in-gathering-needs) {#difficulty-in-gathering-needs-4 .TOC-3}

### [**Necessity of economic justification** 5](#necessity-of-economic-justification) {#necessity-of-economic-justification-5 .TOC-3}

## [**2. Choice of needs during standard development process** 6](#choice-of-needs-during-standard-development-process) {#choice-of-needs-during-standard-development-process-6 .TOC-2}

## [**3. Voluntary standardization: A tool to facilitate ICT accessibility** 8](#voluntary-standardization-a-tool-to-facilitate-ict-accessibility) {#voluntary-standardization-a-tool-to-facilitate-ict-accessibility-8 .TOC-2}

### [**Influence of voluntary standards** 8](#influence-of-voluntary-standards) {#influence-of-voluntary-standards-8 .TOC-3}

### [**Business chance for assistive technologies** 10](#business-chance-for-assistive-technologies) {#business-chance-for-assistive-technologies-10 .TOC-3}

## [**4. Use of standards as a mandatory requirement for public procurement** 11](#use-of-standards-as-a-mandatory-requirement-for-public-procurement) {#use-of-standards-as-a-mandatory-requirement-for-public-procurement-11 .TOC-2}

### [**The case of Japan** 11](#the-case-of-japan) {#the-case-of-japan-11 .TOC-3}

### [**The case of U.S.** 12](#the-case-of-u.s.) {#the-case-of-u.s.-12 .TOC-3}

### [**Impacts of the use of standard as a mandatory requirement** 13](#impacts-of-the-use-of-standard-as-a-mandatory-requirement) {#impacts-of-the-use-of-standard-as-a-mandatory-requirement-13 .TOC-3}

### [**Revision of accessibility standards and technical specifications** 14](#revision-of-accessibility-standards-and-technical-specifications) {#revision-of-accessibility-standards-and-technical-specifications-14 .TOC-3}

### [**Necessity of global harmonization** 14](#necessity-of-global-harmonization) {#necessity-of-global-harmonization-14 .TOC-3}

#  {#section-2 .TOC-1}

# [**PART II** 16](#part-ii) {#part-ii-16 .TOC-1}

## [**5. The Role of conformity assessment and its challenges** 16](#the-role-of-conformity-assessment-and-its-challenges) {#the-role-of-conformity-assessment-and-its-challenges-16 .TOC-2}

### [**The case of Japan** 16](#the-case-of-japan-1) {#the-case-of-japan-16 .TOC-3}

### [**The case of U.S.** 17](#the-case-of-u.s.-1) {#the-case-of-u.s.-17 .TOC-3}

### [**Challenges with conformity assessment** 18](#challenges-with-conformity-assessment) {#challenges-with-conformity-assessment-18 .TOC-3}

## [**6. Alternative approaches to conformity assessment** 18](#alternative-approaches-to-conformity-assessment) {#alternative-approaches-to-conformity-assessment-18 .TOC-2}

### [**Self declaration** 18](#self-declaration) {#self-declaration-18 .TOC-3}

### [**Self declaration with challenge or post-market surveillance** 19](#self-declaration-with-challenge-or-post-market-surveillance) {#self-declaration-with-challenge-or-post-market-surveillance-19 .TOC-3}

### [**Best practitioner method** 19](#best-practitioner-method) {#best-practitioner-method-19 .TOC-3}

### [**Top runner approach** 20](#top-runner-approach) {#top-runner-approach-20 .TOC-3}

### [**Third-party testing system** 21](#third-party-testing-system) {#third-party-testing-system-21 .TOC-3}

### [**Accessibility management system standard** 22](#accessibility-management-system-standard) {#accessibility-management-system-standard-22 .TOC-3}

### [**Top management's declaration of accessibility policy** 23](#top-managements-declaration-of-accessibility-policy) {#top-managements-declaration-of-accessibility-policy-23 .TOC-3}

## [**7. Comparative analysis and conclusions** 24](#comparative-analysis-and-conclusions) {#comparative-analysis-and-conclusions-24 .TOC-2}

# **PART I**

## **1. Difficulty in implementing accessibility functions in mainstream products**

The information society is developing. Chances of interacting with
information and communications technology (ICT) products and services
are increasing day by day. We cannot succeed in society without
accessing ICT products and services. We must urgently solve the issues
of accessibility by people with disabilities so that they can also
succeed and contribute to society.

In the countries where the population is aging, it is also necessary to
include older persons in the information society. Older persons can be
regarded as people with age-related impairments because various human
abilities deteriorate over time.

### **Difficulty in gathering needs**

Companies generally agree with the general desire to implement
accessibility functions in mainstream products. But they face challenges
during product design.

The most difficult of these may be to fully understand the needs of
people with disabilities.

Let us review the case of Japan. The government publishes a report on
persons with disabilities annually. The latest version[^1] reports that
there are 3.5 million persons with physical disabilities, 0.5 million
persons with intellectual disabilities and 2.6 million persons with
mental disorders in Japan. The total corresponds to about 5% of the
total population. Among persons with physical disabilities living at
home, 306 thousand, 381 thousand, 1,797 thousand and 883 thousand are
persons with visual, hearing and/or speech, mobility and internal organ
disabilities[^2], respectively. The category of visual disabilities
consists of blind and various degrees and characteristics of low vision.

In this way, people with disabilities fall into different categories and
the number of people in each category becomes smaller.

People in different categories have different needs. However, because of
the small number of people in each category, it may be difficult for a
company, even if the company puts forth its best effort, to gather needs
directly from people in various categories and then to meet all needs.

Some people have multiple disabilities. Needs of people with multiple
disabilities are not a simple addition of the needs of people with
various single disability. In addition older persons have multiple minor
disabilities. Their needs are also different from the needs of people
with a single disability.

Thus it is difficult for the company to design products taking into
account the widest range of needs of people with disabilities.

The ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and IEC
(International Electrotechnical Commission) jointly form a committee
called the Joint Technical Committee (JTC1).The JTC1 established the
Special Working Group on Accessibility (SWG-A) in 2004 considering a
necessity to address ICT accessibility in global standardization
activities. The SWG-A gathered the needs of people with disabilities and
recently published the User Needs Summary[^3]. The Summary, the first
deliverable of SWG-A, gathers accessibility needs of ICT users and can
be used to analyze whether or not an ICT accessibility standard fully
takes into account the needs of people with disabilities.

The Summary also can be used by a company to understand the needs of
people with disabilities and to analyze whether its mainstream products
take into account these needs. The Summary can help address the first
difficulty a company faces when it wants to design products in which
accessibility functions are implemented.

### **Necessity of economic justification**

However, there exists the second difficulty when companies work to
implement accessibility functions into mainstream products. Companies
must decide which needs will be addressed and which will not. Usually
that decision is made based on the following logic.

A company evaluates individual needs relative to the market size and the
resource necessary to fulfill the need. If the market size is greater
than the resource, the company decides to fulfill the need. Otherwise
the company may not implement an accessibility function corresponding to
a particular need. In short, some economic justification is necessary.

Companies are profit-seeking entities and profit-seeking is the origin
of the healthy market economy. We, therefore, must accept this behavior
of companies.

Of course, in many cases companies recognize their broader social
responsibility and also take into account some needs that are not
economically justifiable. However, it is impossible for companies to
respond to all accessibility needs in the name of social responsibility.

The needs that are not fully met by mainstream products often are
supported by assistive technologies. It is common that governments
subsidize the development and procurement of assistive technologies[^4]
from a social welfare policy perspective: Governments compensate for a
failure in the market. But this is the very reason it is rare to find
assistive technologies that are used worldwide. In other words, the
assistive technology market is much more segmented than the global ICT
market as a whole.

Interfacing between assistive technologies and mainstream products is
also difficult because of the lack of standard interfaces. This makes
assistive technologies more expensive and incompatible with many
products.

We need a new strategy that facilitates implementation of accessibility
functions in mainstream products. Otherwise, we continue to depend on
assistive technologies that are economically inefficient.

## **2. Choice of needs during standard development process**

Around the world, the development of ICT accessibility standards is a
priority topic.

This development is performed, in most cases, through cooperation among
the government, industry and user community. In Japan, for example, a
set of national standards has been developed and approved under the
supervision of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in the last
two years[^5]. In the U.S., a committee called Telecommunications and
Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) was
organized in 2006 by the U.S. Access Board in which users and providers
participate.

These standards, either compulsory or voluntary, can be used as a tool
to facilitate ICT accessibility. Regardless of the form of use of these
standards, during ICT accessibility standard development, the drafting
committee carefully examines needs.

A first step in this review of needs is to determine categories of needs
and also of disabilities. For example, if the standard is to define an
interface between hearing aids and telephone sets[^6], needs that
directly relate to the coupling of hearing aids and telephone sets are
chosen. If the standard related to web content, needs that relate to the
mobility of wheelchair users do not need to be taken into account.

The second aspect of examing needs as part of the standards development
process is technical feasibility. Standards are effective only when they
are used in the market. Needs that are not technically achievable are
usually not covered by standards.

Drafting committees attempt to be very precise in writing clauses. If a
standard requests "be operable without vision" and "be operable without
hearing" simultaneously, the technology hurdle to achieve both
requirements is high. If the standard requests the product conform to at
least one of the above requirements, the hurdle is lower. But if a
product conforms to only "be operable without vision," people with
hearing disability cannot or may not operate the product.

When drafting committees consist of users and providers, users tend to
insist on higher hurdles, while providers try to lower technology
hurdles. In order to find solutions or compromises, it can be useful to
include a neutral party in the drafting committee[^7]. A neutral party
in some cases can be found in academia.

Many standardization organizations claim that they are "industry driven"
but it is important to invite "third parties" to the drafting committee
for accessibility standard development[^8].

Drafting committees usually avoid hurdles that are too high to jump over
by the current technology. A hurdle that is too high will reduce
manufacturers' incentive to design products that conforms to the
standards. A standard everyone ignores is not an influential one.
However, it is recommended not to lower the hurdle too much, because
even though every manufacturer easily can ship products conforming to
that ICT accessibility standard, users may still face difficulty in
using the resulting products that are deemed "accessible."

Importantly, there is also a positive trend to make standards that are
technology neutral, concentrating on functional requirements, so that
manufacturers are free to decide their technological solutions and
compete to design the best and most accessible products.

It must be understood that standards usually do not cover all needs. It
can be a political process among drafting committee members to select
needs that must be met in standard development process. One exception is
ISO 9241-20 that is under development to recommend accessibility
requirements of all ICT products and services[^9]. ISO 9241-20 is a
comprehensive but high level standard.

## **3. Voluntary standardization: A tool to facilitate ICT accessibility**

In this chapter, we review the situation where standards are used
voluntarily in the market.

### **Influence of voluntary standards**

Publication of standards is important for both users and manufacturers.

Manufacturers welcome the publication of ICT accessibility standards. It
is easier for manufacturers to prioritize needs by referring to
standards than by selecting needs internally as mentioned in the
previous chapter.

Perhaps even more important is that the standards can be used to
"educate" designers. ICT products and services are in most cases
designed by young designers who may be far from people with disabilities
and older persons. ICT accessibility standards can be valuable
educational material for these young designers.

Users can acquire in the marketplace mainstream products that implement
some accessibility functions. Users also can understand that all needs
can not be satisfied by the mainstream products alone. Users can make
their own decision whether to "buy mainstream products," "rely on
assistive technologies" or "some combination of both"

Users often find difficulties in getting information about product
accessibility functions. Because products are often sold on the market
without attaching a document that describes their accessibility
functions, it becomes difficult for users to know the accessibility
functionality of products on the market. Information about accessibility
functions must be disclosed effectively to users in the form of
documentation or via the Internet.

Mainstream products that feature accessibility functions have been
increasing since the publication of ICT accessibility standards in
Japan. One example is a mobile phone called "Raku Raku PHONE" provided
by Fujitsu[^10]. It features, as demonstrated in Fig. 1, a variety of
accessibility functions; a larger button size, one-touch buttons for
dedicated receiving parties, and the ability to alter the text color and
the background and size of the text, etc. In addition a voice
synthesizer is installed, through which people can listen to e-mails
received by the phone. More than eight million Raku Raku PHONEs have
been sold. This mobile phone is not an exception. We can find copiers,
telephone sets and laptop computers that implement accessibility
functions.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.6701388888888888in"
height="4.654861111111111in"}

Fig. 1 Accessibility functions in Raku Raku PHONE\
(Explanation about the figure is given in the previous paragraph)

*Source: T. Irie et.al., Error: Reference source not found*

Why does Fujitsu manufacture the Raku Raku PHONE? One reason is the
maturity of the market. The number of mobile subscribers exceeds 100
million in Japan now. This figure corresponds to 73% of the population.
People who seldom use mobile phones are babies, young children and older
persons. Fujitsu and other manufacturers are, therefore, eager to sell
their mobiles featuring a larger button size, one-touch buttons for
dedicated receiving parties, etc. In short, older persons are one of the
last untapped markets for mobile manufacturers. We also can find mobiles
that are designed for children in the market.

Providing accessibility functions in mainstream products results in an
important externality. We can expect a dramatic decrease of unit
production cost of ICT hardware. ICT hardware uses a huge number of
semiconductor chips the cost of which decreases by accumulating
production. Because of the reduction of unit cost, we can find for
example a variety of "speaking" ICT products that now install voice
synthesizer chips.

People without disabilities also benefit from accessibility functions.
Users often find "speaking" ICT products are easier to use than ordinary
products.

Assistive technology developers can also use the voice synthesizer
function in their product without caring about the cost. In this way,
mainstream products and assistive technologies can build a collaborative
relation.

In the case of software, if a software module can be used in a variety
of ICT products, it also reduces the unit cost of ICT products.

The market welcomes accessible products. The success of an accessible
product drives other companies to respond and can result in further
deployment of accessible products. In the best case, this chain reaction
creates a trend of deeper and more serious consideration of
accessibility functions in the mainstream products.

This is the final effect of the voluntary use of ICT accessibility
standards.

### **Business chance for assistive technologies**

The development of voluntary standards is a business opportunity and
challenge for assistive technology developers.

The transfer of knowledge from assistive technology developers to
mainstream product designers is inevitable to implement accessibility
functions into mainstream products. Assistive technology developers
receive rewards for the knowledge transfer in the form of patent and
know-how licensing.

Designing assistive technologies becomes easier in this case because
standards define explicitly the interfaces between assistive
technologies and mainstream products. In addition, assistive technology
developers can use cheaper hardware and/or software components already
installed in mainstream products. These development and production cost
reductions positively impact the assistive technology market and
facilitate the broader dissemination of assistive technologies.

Clearly, there will remain a need for the assistive technology market.
While some assistive technology products will be disappearing from the
market as they are implemented into mainstream products, a market will
continue to exist for dedicated assistive technologies that meet
consumer needs.

## **4. Use of standards as a mandatory requirement for public procurement**

Governments are starting to use ICT accessibility standards in their
policy measures. Since policy measures accompany enforcement power, the
influence is different from the voluntary use of standards described in
the previous chapter.

### **The case of Japan**

In 1995, the government announced guidelines for the criteria to be used
in the general evaluation of contracts and tenders for the supply of
computers and services to the government as an agreement among agencies
and bureaus. A statement in the announcement reads: "*Items to be
evaluated shall be established in conformity with international and
national standards*." Therefore, products and services supplied to the
government must have been designed with consideration for ICT
accessibility determined in the series of existing standards. One
example is the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's public
procurement announcement of its information system. The announcement
requests that tenders explain how the national accessibility standards
are met.

In Japan, there is a public procurement system for accessible websites
in the central government. Two laws, the Basic Law on the Formation of
an Advanced Information and Telecommunications Network Society enacted
in 2000 and the Persons with Disabilities Fundamental Law amended in
2004 mention the necessity of accessibility in governmental
websites[^11]. Under the two basic laws, the government has developed
Basic Plans and annual implementation plans in which target dates are
determined. One example is that e-Government system which is
under-development will increase information provisioning in accessible
format in the fiscal 2006.

The Persons with Disabilities Fundamental Law also requests local
governments to develop local basic plans. Many local basic plans include
a schedule to develop accessible websites.

Website development for these central and local governments is usually
contracted to system integrators. In order to get contracts, system
integrators develop and publish, free of charge, web accessibility
checking tools. In addition, system integrators develop helper tools,
e.g. voice synthesizer software and/or software to change color to
negative polarity color scheme, installed in governmental websites. An
example is the website of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. The
website can be displayed in negative polarity color scheme. System
integrators are now eager to sell Content Management System.

One interesting point is that the laws do not impose punishment. The
"graying" of Japanese society discussed in the previous chapter has
triggered many of these movements.

### **The case of U.S.**

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requests U.S. Federal Government
states the following:

> *When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and
> information technology, each Federal department or agency, including
> the United States Postal Service, shall ensure, unless an undue burden
> would be imposed on the department or agency, that the electronic and
> information technology allows, regardless of the type of medium of the
> technology \--*
>
> *(i) individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees to have
> access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the
> access to and use of the information and data by Federal employees who
> are not individuals with disabilities; and*
>
> *(ii) individuals with disabilities who are members of the public
> seeking information or services from a Federal department or agency to
> have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to
> the access to and use of the information and data by such members of
> the public who are not individuals with disabilities.*

Section 508 was amended in 1998. Technical specifications were developed
and made compulsory then and the U.S. Federal Government started to
procure accessible ICT products in 2001. What is different here from the
case of Japan is that Section 508 includes some enforcement. If an
agency procured an inaccessible ICT product when other functionally
equivalent accessible products existed, a Federal employee with
disabilities can make complaint or even take legal action against the
agency. In the case of an ICT product made available to the public from
the Federal Government, an individual can take the same legal action.

It is noteworthy, however, that the technical specifications established
do not satisfy all the needs. It is identical to the case of voluntary
standard development. Needs of some categories of people with
disabilities are not covered. Needs that are significantly difficult are
not also covered. The term "*unless an undue burden would be imposed*"
is an expression of necessity of cost effectiveness in the public
procurement[^12].

### **Impacts of the use of standard as a mandatory requirement**

Currently in Europe, there is a movement to apply similar policy
measures to public procurement of ICT products and services.

Government procurement policies that require compliance with
accessibility standards can be an incentive for manufacturers to develop
and market accessible products and services. However, this development
and production of accessible products likely will incur additional cost.
But, if the cost is compensated by public procurement, companies can be
more aggressively implement accessibility functions in their mainstream
products.

Public procurement accounts for more than 10% of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in many countries. The huge public sector market is extremely
attractive to the private sector.

While this procurement of accessible products may increase the cost to
the public sector, it also reduces expenses to subsidize assistive
technologies since people who needed to use assistive technologies can
use accessible mainstream products instead. In addition, in the long
run, accessible ICT mainstream products will enjoy a natural, and likely
dramatic, cost reduction.

If an e-Government system is developed which is accessible only by
limited range of people, the government needs to continue the service of
conventional (not e-Government) system in parallel. We must pay tax for
the operation of two parallel systems. It is, therefore, reasonable to
spend additional expenses to further develop accessibility functions in
e-Government system since we can expect reduction of future operating
cost.

In the long run, accessibility criteria in public procurement work
positively to achieve a more efficient government system.

### **Revision of accessibility standards and technical specifications**

Since technologies are rapidly evolving in the ICT area, accessibility
standards and technical specifications (hereinafter collectively called
accessibility standards) that are used in public procurement must be
revised periodically. Reasons for the revision are as follow.

1.  New product introduction: Accessibility standards must be up to
    date. In the ICT industry, frequently a product that did not exist
    several years ago does exist now. Apple's iPod is a typical example.
    The introduction of the iPod to the market changed the music
    industry. People buy music not at music stores such as Tower
    Records, once a popular music retailer that has gone out of
    business, but via the Internet now. This change in behavior and the
    market affects people with disabilities. Therefore, accessibility
    standards of portable content player are now necessary. The same is
    true for ICT services. We also need accessibility standards for
    services such as Skype and YouTube.

2.  Change in technical feasibility: Technology development lowers the
    hurdle to realize accessibility functions. Technologies that were
    not feasible several years ago may be implemented more easily now.
    One example is media conversion. Digitalization of information
    creates an environment where media conversion, such as from speech
    to text and from text to speech, is easier. Accessibility standards
    must support these technology developments. Needs that were not
    covered by accessibility standards can be covered now. Revision of
    accessibility standards enlarges the scope of meeting needs.

3.  Change in policy objectives: Accessibility standards must reflect
    policy objectives. If policy objectives change, accessibility
    standards may need to be modified. For example:

    I.  Increasing ICT use in all aspects of life may require an
        employment policy measure to accommodate people with
        disabilities in the workplace.

    II. Accessibility requirements must be more seriously considered in
        e-Government.

### **Necessity of global harmonization**

It is important to achieve global harmonization of standards for ICT
accessibility

One reason is to reduce a technical barrier to trade. If accessibility
standards differ region by region, manufacturers need to adjust their
products to meet various, potentially conflicting accessibility
standards. On the other hand, if the specifications are harmonized
globally, manufactures benefit from the economy of scale.

The economy of scale also benefits users of ICT products who can
purchase more products at lower prices.

Global harmonization encourages movement of people including people with
disabilities and older persons around the globe. It is hard for people
to access to a public terminal abroad, if user interface is completely
different from that in their homelands. On the other hand, if global
harmonization is achieved, people can move more easily, freely and
frequently. Global harmonization consequently facilitates mutual
understanding of people in different countries and cultures via movement
of people.

It is also true that pursuing global harmonization saves scarce
resources and knowledge in the standard development process. Since ICT
accessibility is a relatively new area of research and business, the
number of experts available is limited at the global level.

The revision of Section 508 technical specifications involves foreign
participants including representatives from Australia, Canada, Europe
and Japan[^13]. This action is welcome and should be supported.

# **PART II**

## **5. The Role of conformity assessment and its challenges**

Most requirements in accessibility standards are qualitative not
quantitative. This qualitative nature makes determining product
conformance very difficult.

If a requirement is "the character size printed on operable controls
shall be 5 mm or larger and the contrast ratio shall be 4:1or higher,"
it is easy to judge. However, if a requirement is "a screen display
device shall support advanced functions such as character enlargement
and contrast adjustment," no one can determine the appropriate size and
contrast of character on screen. Because of this ambiguity regions are
now struggling to establish effective accessibility conformity
assessment approaches. However, especially for public procurement, it is
necessary to do so.

In Europe, three regional standardization organizations are now under
negotiation with the European Commission which wants to implement
accessibility requirements into public procurement, including through a
study on accessibility and conformity assessment. The European Committee
for Standardization (CEN) will soon undertake an examination of
accessibility conformity assessment under the secretariatship of
Asociacion Espanola de Normalizacion y Certificacion (AENOR) of Spain.

### **The case of Japan**

Telecommunications equipment which conforms with the national
accessibility standard JIS X8341-4 "Telecommunications equipment"
carries a symbol mark called "U mark." The capital U in the "U mark"
stands for user-oriented.

The "U mark" is a system provided by Info-communication Access
Council[^14]. The Council developed a checklist based on JIS X8341-4. A
manufacturer uses the checklist and if it thinks a product conforms to
the checklist, the manufacturer sends the list to the Council. The
manufacturer attaches the mark to the product and the Council discloses
the received checklist to the public.

If users find difficulty in using declared accessibility functions, they
can submit a notification to the Council and the Council initiates an
investigation. In this way reliability of declaration is ensured. In
short, the "U mark" is a self declaration system with some post-market
process to handle complaints.

As of October 20, 2006, 20 products carried the mark. One example is a
fax machine from Panasonic Communications[^15]. It features
accessibility functions including the following: as a number button is
pressed, a voice informs the user of the button's number; the user can
hear the dialed number again by pressing the "repeat" button; for their
easy hearing, users can choose tone characteristics of the receiver
sound; and the handset features a bone conduction speaker that uses
vibrations which allow users to hear their telephone conversations. The
Raku Raku PHONE is another example.

Web accessibility checking tools designed by system integrators declare
they conform to JIS X8341-3 "Web contents" accessibility standard. Some
companies self declare that their copiers conform to JIS X8341-5 "Office
equipment." Companies ship personal computers taking into account the
accessibility requirements listed in JIS X8341-2 "Information Processing
Equipment."

However, there is no marking system in these product areas. There is
also no way to confirm whether products really conform to these national
standards.

In a country like Japan, where implementation of accessibility functions
is not mandatory, it may be a challenge to establish a reliable
conformance assessment system.

### **The case of U.S.**

After the enactment of the Section 508 technical specifications, the
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) collaborated with the
General Service Administration (GSA) to develop a system to communicate
conformance information called the Voluntary Product Accessibility
Template (VPAT). The VPAT assists Federal procurement officials in
making preliminary assessments regarding the accessibility features in
commercial ICT products and services.

The VPAT is a checklist that shows how a product conforms to the
relevant Section 508 standards. Companies produce a VPAT for each
individual product, post them on their company websites[^16], and link
them to the GSA's "Buy Accessible Wizard" website[^17]. Procurement
officials use the "Buy Accessible Wizard" to identify products that meet
their requirements.

Whether the resulting checklist is correct or not can be ambiguous. Not
because of a lack of commitment by the companies, but because Section
508 technical specifications are written qualitatively. The extent to
which any product conforms to the qualitative technical specifications
is therefore somewhat subjectively.

### **Challenges with conformity assessment**

We reviewed two cases of Japan and U.S. Both use self declaration scheme
and demonstrate the identical limiting feature: No one knows of the
declaration is correct or not.

This difficulty is not a responsibility of industry. Companies devote
their best efforts to check the compliance. But because accessibility
standards are in most cases written qualitatively, it is impossible to
determine compliance in objective manner.

How do we overcome the difficulty? One possibility is to gather
quantitative data and use them in accessibility standards. The ISO
already started such effort. One committee under the ISO is now
developing a document[^18] titled "Ergonomic data and ergonomic
guidelines for the application of ISO/IEC Guide 71 to products and
services to address the needs of older persons and persons with
disabilities." The document summarizes reference data of various human
abilities including vision and hearing.

We will discuss the other possibilities in the next chapter.

## **6. Alternative approaches to conformity assessment**

Let us now examine alternative approaches to conformity assessment one
by one.

### **Self declaration**

Self declaration remains as an important approach to conformity
assessment even though we pointed out a couple of challenges in the
previous chapter.

Self declaration is used widely around the world and in various
scenarios. In Japan the conformity assessment of telecommunication
terminals is performed by self declaration based on an Ordinance
published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications[^19].
Self declaration was also introduced to telephone terminals in the U.S.

For product safety and electromagnetic compatibility, self declaration
is used by many countries around the world. A page in the website of
European Commission explains European situation: *There are currently
three conformity assessment procedures for such equipment. The first is
self-declaration by the manufacturer where he/she applies the relevant
European harmonized standards*[^20].

### **Self declaration with challenge or post-market surveillance**

In the very competitive global ICT marketplace, companies closely watch
and monitor each other, even testing each other's products, to determine
how and whether they meet market requirements. The "post-market
surveillance" is a powerful and informal way to support the self
declaration approach to conformity assessment. An example of the
mechanism is as follows.

The first company tests accessibility of its product by itself and
discloses the test results to the public procurement agency, e.g., by
creating a VPAT. The second company monitors the first company's self
declaration and challenges to them when it feels they are not correct.
If challenged, the first company may be asked by the government agency
to provide its test results or some other form of validation. And if it
fails to prove conformance, the first company is required to correct the
situation or may be prevented from bidding or selling the product to the
government[^21]. This dynamic happens now with Section 508 and VPATs in
the United States.

Japanese "U mark" system described before is a similar approach where,
not competing companies, but users submit a notification to the Council
when a product attached "U mark" does not work properly.

There is a possibility of stacking up challenges if companies
aggressively challenge each other. There is also a possibility that
companies hesitate to challenge others if they think not challenging to
others reduce the likelihood of receiving challenges from others.

### **Best practitioner method**

The self police mechanism implies a penalty. On the contrary, best
practitioner method rewards the best company. In order to do so, a
measure is necessary.

In Japan a magazine which circulates mostly among government officials
publishes "e-city" ranking every year[^22]. The magazine distributes
questionnaires to local governments. Surprisingly, because this
questionnaire survey is very popular to officials, the response rate is
as large as 87.5% in 2006.

Questions cover a wide areas for example information and service
provisioning to the public via the Internet, website accessibility,
office work informatization inside local government, policy practices
related to community informatization, and information security.
Regarding the accessibility, the magazine prepares 31 questions such as
existence of guidelines, alternative texts to image, consideration to
color blindness, introduction of Content Management System and practice
of user testing.

Relative scores for the answers are calculated and the rankings are
published in the magazine. Nishinomiya City won the first prize this
year and has held the position for two years. Fujisawa City moved to the
second from the fourth last year, and Ichikawa City got the third prize.

In this ranking, not quantitative measure but relative score is used.
But because of the popularity of the survey, every city competes with
each other to get the highest ranking.

This example of best practitioner method demonstrates that even if every
accessibility function is measured qualitatively and relatively, it is
possible to identify the best practitioner.

However, to operate the best practitioner method in industry, we need a
secretary similar to the magazine in the Japanese case. It is possible
to have industry association work the secretary role. Another option may
be to organize a committee that includes users and neutral parties.

### **Top runner approach**

The top runner approach is used in regulation to improve energy
efficiency of vehicles and electronic appliances. In Japan the \"Law
Concerning the Rational Use of Energy (Energy Conservation Law)" is the
legal background. The approach set the next efficiency standard based on
efficiency levels of the most efficient products supplied domestically,
including future technological development. It is reported that energy
efficiency of air conditioners has improved 67.8% since the introduction
of the approach in 1997. Energy efficiency of gasoline passenger
vehicles had been improved 22.0% between 1995 and 2004[^23].

To hasten this shift to products with higher efficiency, plans for
promoting procurement of products that achieve standards is needed.

The top runner approach can be applied in public procurement of
accessible ICT products. If the public sector procures more products of
higher ranking, it is a good incentive for companies to implement
accessibility functions in mainstream products. In other words, the
public sector sets procurement criteria referring to the data the top
runner achieved.

This top runner approach uses the results of the best practitioner
survey for the public procurement; therefore, identical pros and cons
can be identified.

For the best practitioner method and/or the top runner approach,
involvement of a third party should be carefully considered. In
academia, the peer review is a common practice; e.g. academic papers are
published after reviews by peer scientists and academic societies choose
Fellows and Honorary Members by peer review. If the best practitioner
method and/or the top runner approach work satisfactory by peer review
in industry associations, there is no need of third party involvement.

Involvement of third party increases the social costs. However, users
may feel judgments are more objective by the involvement of third party.
It is important to acquire user confidence in order to smoothly launch
the best practitioner method and/or the top runner approach.

### **Third-party testing system**

Another possible approach is third-party testing system.

The Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law of Japan applies to
companies that manufacture or import electrical appliance in Japan.
Electrical appliances are divided into two categories, specified
electrical appliances and non-specified electrical appliances, taking
into account the degree of danger of electric shock. Specified
electrical appliances are subject to conformity testing conducted by an
accredited inspection body and receive a certificate of conformity from
the body while self declaration can be used for non-specified electric
appliances[^24]. This is an example of a third-party testing system.

A third-party testing approach may have an advantage that the test can
be more objective than self declaration which could facilitate
acceptance of accessible mainstream products in the market.

However, third-party testing systems also need quantitative metrics, a
viable, consistent validation process, and accumulation of expertise in
inspection bodies. If third-party testing system is initiated without
any of the three essential conditions, it may create chaos in the market
or at least it becomes unclear whether the tested product really
conforms to standards.

To ensure credibility of inspection bodies, it is necessary to identify
or prepare an accreditation organization. In the case of electrical
appliance safety in Japan, which is a quantitative measure, inspection
bodies are examined and accredited by the National Institute of
Technology and Evaluation under a scheme called Japan National
Laboratory Accreditation System.

The necessity of accreditation schemes for qualitative accessibility
conformity assessments would be difficult to create and significantly
increases the social and business costs to implement accessibility
certification.

Not all organizations have the knowledge and experiences to check their
own products. They may wish voluntarily to have their products tested by
specialized bodies. This could be the case of small and medium size
enterprises that face the lack of knowledge and experiences. Small local
governments could also have a willingness of checking accessibility of
their websites by a third party.

### **Accessibility management system standard**

A management standard requires no numerical figures, which are common in
product standards, but suggests a way of doing management in
organization based on the PDCA cycle[^25]. The ISO created a set of
quality management system standards (ISO 9000 series) in 1987 and then
developed environmental management system standards (ISO 14000 series)
in 1996.

An accessibility management system standard could request a company do
the following:

1.  The company shall have an information accessibility policy. The
    company shall ensure that the policy is followed in the plan,
    design, development and evaluation of ICT equipment and services.

2.  The company shall specify user requirements for accessibility and
    produce design solutions.

3.  The company shall evaluate accessibility design solutions of ICT
    products and services with users. Evaluation of accessibility design
    solutions includes user test results and other available forms of
    user feedback. For the evaluation an existing checklist mentioned in
    the previous chapter can be used.

4.  The company shall have a transparent way of receiving and handling
    user complaints.

5.  The company shall keep records of their activities.

6.  The company shall disclose information how accessibility is
    improving in their products.

A third party could investigate whether the accessibility management
system in the company is working or not and issue certification to the
company. Governments might give priority to certified companies for
public procurement. In this way, in the long run, the number of
accessible products and services might continuously increase.

In this system, companies can use the checklists mentioned in the
previous chapter to evaluate products. Therefore, this system is
compatible with technical accessibility standards.

What is important is consistency over time. If the number of conformed
to criteria increases year by year and the number of conformed to
products and services increases, we do not need to focus on whether the
checking is subjective or objective.

One of the benefits of an accessibility management standard scheme is
the improved perception of the key accessibility issues by employees and
the public. The other is that certificates can improve the ability to
meet compliance with accessibility policy measures.

While each of these possible benefits make it worthwhile to consider
this approach, an accessibility management system also adds social and
business costs which are very similar to those with third-party testing
system. The ISO 9000 and 14000 systems are criticized sometimes that
both systems contribute not to improve quality and environmental
measures but to create income of accreditation organizations.

### **Top management's declaration of accessibility policy**

In ISO there exists a guide titled "Guidelines for the justification and
development of management system standards[^26]." It is necessary to
pass the criteria provided in the Guide to develop the accessibility
management system standard.

An alternative and simpler way is asking top management to declare its
commitment to corporate accessibility policy. The declaration must be
disclosed to the public so that the top management takes the
responsibility upon itself. The declaration improves perception of the
key accessibility issues by their employees and the public.

Since there is no need to include accreditation organizations in this
case, the social cost becomes smaller compared to the system using
accessibility management system standard.

## **7. Comparative analysis and conclusions**

Each of the alternative approaches discussed in this chapter have both
pros and the cons. Self declaration is, for example, easy to implement
but objectivity of judgment may be questionable. Accreditation based on
accessibility management system standard may be a way of keeping
objectivity but requires higher social costs than others.

What is important is to start such considerations as soon as possible to
meet the necessity of developing an effective conformity assessment
approach for public procurement of accessible ICT products and services.

It is also noteworthy that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive.
For example a system can be designed where big enterprises use self
declaration while small and medium size enterprises use third party
testing system, if the measures used in these systems are compatible.
Top management's declaration of accessibility policy obviously co-exists
with other alternative ways.

Mixed use of alternatives or mixed modes may reduce social costs and
improve the creditability of conformity assessment simultaneously.

[^1]: Cabinet Office, "Annual Report on Government Measures for Persons
    with Disabilities (Summary) 2005,"
    http://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/english/annualreport/2005/h17_report.pdf

[^2]: Persons with internal organ disabilities include persons with
    disabilities in heart function (e.g. people using pace maker,)
    kidney function (e.g. people using hemodialysis treatment,)
    breathing function and other.

[^3]: JTC1 SWG-A, "User Needs Summary Version 1.0,"
    http://www.jtc1access.org/documents/swga_212.zip

[^4]: In Japan, purchase of "welfare equipment" is supported by the
    government. The list of "welfare equipment" can be found in the
    website of Association for Technical Aids in Japanese.
    http://www.techno-aids.or.jp/

[^5]: JIS X8341 Series, "Guidelines for older persons and persons with
    disabilities \-- information communication equipment, software and
    services \--," Part 1:"Common Guidelines," Part 2 "Information
    Processing Equipment," Part 3 "Web Contents," Part 4
    "Telecommunications Equipment" and Part 5 "Office Equipment"

[^6]: For example, ITU-T, "Coupling Hearing Aids to Telephone sets,"
    Recommendation P.370 (1996)

[^7]: Article 13-2 of the Industrial Standardization Law of Japan reads:
    "*Relevant ministers must enact any drafts proposed by JISC as
    industrial standards, in case of responding to opinions of all
    substantial interest parties, applying to anyone under the same
    conditions without discrimination, and being recognized by relevant
    ministers as appropriate." The Article is the foundation of inviting
    the three parties to drafting committees in Japan*.

[^8]: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and Ecma International are
    examples of standardization organizations that explicitly mention it
    is industry driven. Other organizations like to use a term "market
    driven," however, in most cases leadership of organization is held
    by industry.

[^9]: The title of ISO 9241-20 is "Ergonomics of human-system
    interaction \-- Part 20; Accessibility guidelines for
    information/communication technology (ICT) equipment and services."

[^10]: T. Irie, K. Matsunaga and Y. Nagano, "Universal Design Activities
    for Mobile Phone: Raku Raku PHONE, " FUJITSU Sci. Tech. J., vol.41,
    p.79 (2005)

[^11]: The Article 10 of Persons with Disabilities Fundamental Law has
    the title of "Realization of information barrier free." The Article
    requests the following:

    *States and local authorities shall undertake necessary measures to
    spread electronic computers and their related devices and other
    information and communications equipment which are easy to use for
    people with disabilities, to promote convenience for people with
    disabilities in their use of telecommunications and broadcasting
    services, and to equip facilities which provide information for
    people with disabilities, in order that they can make use of
    information in an efficient manner and express their own will.*

[^12]: "Section 508 Acquisition FAQ\'s Page 3" in Section 508 website,
    www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=92

[^13]: Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology
    Advisory Committee, "Committee members",
    http://teitac.org/wiki/Committee_members

[^14]: Info-communication Access Council website in Japanese,
    http://www.ciaj.or.jp/access/

[^15]: See in detail in the following URL:
    http://panasonic.co.jp/pcc/cs/en/telecom/otakkusu/FKN551_English_Quick_Guide.pdf

[^16]: Some companies do not post their VPATs on their websites. In the
    case users need to get VPAT information by asking by e-mail, but
    this arrangement reduces the visibility of VPATs.

[^17]: General Service Administration, "Welcome to the Buy Accessible
    Wizard!," http://app.buyaccessible.gov/baw/

[^18]: ISO TC 159/WG 2 "Ergonomics for people with special requirements"
    is developing the document. The number is ISO TR22411.

[^19]: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, "Ordinance
    Concerning Technical Conditions Compliance Approval etc. of Terminal
    Equipment,"
    http://www.soumu.go.jp/joho_tsusin/eng/Resources/Legislation/MRA/040416_1.pdf

[^20]: See in detail in the following URL:
    http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/index.htm

[^21]: The Government Accountability Office provides a forum for bidders
    seeking federal government contracts who believe that a contract has
    been or is about to be awarded in violation of the laws and
    regulations that govern contracting with the federal government. See
    in detail in http://www.gao.gov/

[^22]: The latest version of "e-city" ranking is in Nikkei BP Government
    Technology Autumn 2006 (in Japanese)

[^23]: Energy Conservation Center, Japan, "Top Runner Program:
    Developing the World's best energy efficient appliances,"
    http://www.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/index.html

[^24]: See in detail in English translation of the law.
    http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/market/regulations/pdf/denan-2001nov-e.pdf

[^25]: PDCA was made popular by W. E. Deming: PLAN establishes the
    objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance
    with the specifications; DO implements the processes; CHECK monitors
    and evaluates the processes and results against objectives and
    Specifications and reports the outcome; and ACT applies actions to
    the outcome for necessary improvement. This means reviewing all
    steps (Plan, Do, Check, Act) and modifying the process to improve it
    before its next implementation. See in detail in
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA

[^26]: ISO Guide 72:2001 "Guidelines for the justification and
    development of management system standards"