DREAM ITN
Final Deliverable
Anthony Giannoumis
Norwegian Social Research Institute (NOVA), Oslo and Akershus University
College of Applied Sciences (HIOA), Norway
Supervisors: Bjørn Hvinden, Head of Research/ Professor
Rune Halvorsen, Researcher
DREAM work package: Monitoring the Implementation & Enforcement of
eAccessibility law and policy at the Member State level
April, 2015
1 1.
Introduction to My Topic & Research Questions
As a part of the DREAM network, my research focused on the monitoring,
implementation and enforcement of e-accessibility policies (Giannoumis, 2014;
Giannoumis & Halvorsen, 2012). E-accessibility refers to the design of information and
communication technologies that are usable by persons with disabilities. The principle
aim was to identify how different intermediaries (e.g., policy approaches, participatory
processes and commercial incentives) impact the monitoring, implementation and
enforcement of e-accessibility policies. Understanding the intermediaries of policy
implementation provides a useful opportunity to investigate the unintended effects of
national and international policy efforts. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) obligates States Parties to ensure the accessibility of
information and communications technology, including the web (United Nations, 2006).
Disability antidiscrimination regulations in the United States (US), United Kingdom
(UK) and Norway similarly provide a legislative basis for an obligation to develop
technology that is usable by persons with disabilities (BLID, 2008; "Disability
Discrimination Act," 1995; "Equality Act 2010," 2010; "Public Law 101-336: Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990," 1994).
Thus, DREAM provided a basis for me to research the interaction of different levels of
governance nationally and supranationally, and the regulatory aspects of web
accessibility. The CRPD provides a useful legal framework for examining efforts to
regulate web accessibility. As a signatory to the CRPD, the European Union (EU) has
responded to obligations to ensure web accessibility by developing voluntary standards
for public procurement (i.e., through Mandate 376) and developing an initiative to
regulate the accessibility of goods and services in the Internal Market (EC, 2005, 2011).
Historically, the EU’s approach to disability policy and web accessibility in
particular has been influenced by similar developments in the US (Hvinden & Halvorsen,
2003). However, the combined approaches of the US and EU to regulate web
accessibility mirrors early efforts to regulate the internet. Internet regulation focuses
primarily on voluntary approaches to establishing technological compatibility. Efforts to
2 regulate the internet were primarily driven by international organizations such as the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and promoted a largely selfregulatory approach to the internet. In addition, national governments have largely
hesitated to regulate the content of the internet except in specific circumstances.
However, even limited regulation of web content has encountered resistance both from
government – claiming that regulation would limit the economic developments that have
emerged from the internet – and from interest organizations – claiming that regulation
limits freedom of expression and individual liberties.
Thus, the EU’s approach to web accessibility has been influenced by these discourses, as
well as the EU’s own limited power. Member States have delegated increasing authority
to the EU create legislation. As an economic and political partnership, the EU’s authority
to create legislation is limited to policy areas enumerated in the EU treaties. Disability
discrimination is included in Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union. The EU’s approach to disability policy has included legislative and persuasive
policies aimed at removing barriers to participation for persons with disabilities. Through
these efforts, the EU has implemented the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC),
mainstreamed disability issues in relevant policies and processes and promoted an
“Accessibility for All” initiative.
However, despite national and EU efforts to regulate web accessibility, in practice,
barriers to inclusion continue to pervade the web. Thus, understanding the problems
associated with current efforts to legislate and promote web accessibility provides a
useful basis for exploring opportunities for reform. My research asks, “How do social
institutions – i.e. norms, values and procedures important to a society – affect the design
and implementation of web accessibility policies?” Under this broad inquiry, my research
asks specifically,
•
How and to what extent have social institutions, which structure and affect
the design and implementation of web accessibility policies, changed over time?
•
How has the institutional setting influenced the implementation of web
accessibility policies?
3 •
2.
How have policy actors implemented legal obligations in practice?
My Research Journey.
In order to understand the implementation of web accessibility polices, I conducted a
comparative case study of three countries, the US, UK and Norway. Comparative case
studies are useful for examining how policies translate into practice (Yin, 1994).
Comparative case studies in particular are useful in drawing causal inferences (George &
Bennett, 2005; Ragin, 1987). Causal inferences refer to conclusions drawn from an
examination of the mechanisms of policy implementation. The choice of cases (the UK,
US and Norway) demonstrate contrasting approaches for addressing E-Accessibility
within differing legal cultures, regulatory environments and policy instrumentation.
While the UK-US comparison resembles what George and Bennet (2005) call the “most
similar case design”, the US-Norway comparison resembles what the authors have called
the “most different case design”. These patterns are useful for identifying and
understanding how different factors affect the implementation of policies. Though
comparative case studies do not provide statistically generalizable results, they do
provide a useful basis for identifying and extrapolating new causal mechanisms
(Mitchell, 1983). Thus, a well-developed comparative case study can generate new
knowledge and clarify complex social and political phenomena.
To conduct a comparative case study of the UK, US and Norway, I aimed to analyze the
implementation of web accessibility policies. To provide an in-depth explanation, I
extended the analysis of the three cases to include the historical precedents (e.g., political,
social and technological trends) that contributed to policy implementation. The analysis
included an examination of relevant policies (e.g., legislation, financial incentives and
persuasion including voluntary agreements, information, supervision and guidelines) and
organizations (e.g., regulatory agencies and standards organizations) involved in web
accessibility.
4 In the UK, regulators such as the Disability Rights Commission and the Equality and
Human Rights Commission have created web accessibility policies based on disability
antidiscrimination provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and later in the
Equality Act 2010. UK regulators have created a legal obligation for web accessibility in
Codes of Practice for service providers in 2002 and reiterated the obligation in 2011. In
addition, UK regulators have participated in developing a national web accessibility
standard in conjunction with the British Standards Institution, BS 8878.
In the US, regulators such as the National Council on Disability and the US Department
of Justice have supported the monitoring, implementation and enforcement of the
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA). Case law in the US has clarified the
application of the ADA to the web. However, the US government has also addressed web
accessibility through public procurement legislation in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act 1973. In support of Section 508, the US Access Board has produced web
accessibility standards for use by public agencies and in public procurement.
In Norway, regulators such as the Agency for Public Management and eGovernment and
the Delta Centre have focused on promoting voluntary adoption of web accessibility
policies by producing guidelines and recommendations. However, in 2013 the Agency for
Public Management and eGovernment produced regulations requiring public websites to
adhere to international performance standards for web accessibility. The Agency for
Public Management and eGovernment is also responsible for interpreting and hearing
complaints regarding the universal design of information and communication technology
(ICT). The universal design of ICT is a provision in the Anti-discrimination Accessibility
Act 2008 and refers to the creation of ICT for use by the broadest possible population,
including persons with disabilities.
Internationally, the EU and European Standards Organizations (ESO), the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and
the United Nations have played useful roles in continuing to develop web accessibility
policies. The EU has proposed a European Accessibility Act, which could provide a
5 useful mechanism for harmonizing EU Member State laws on web accessibility. The
ESO have developed a web accessibility standard for public procurement, which
complements Section 508 in the US. The W3C have been involved in web accessibility
standardization since the 1990s and have produced an international performance standard,
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The ISO have used WCAG as a
basis for producing an international standard on information technology, ISO / IEC
40500:2012. Finally, the UN, through the CRPD, have produced a General Comment on
Article 9: Accessibility, which recognizes web accessibility as a human rights obligation.
While the overview of web accessibility internationally and in the UK, US and Norway
provides a broad overview of the prominent policies and actors, it does not include the
numerous soft policies developed nationally and internationally and the myriad interest
organizations and enterprises involved in the development and implementation of web
accessibility policies. Nonetheless, these policies and actors are integral to understanding
the complexity of implementing web accessibility policies and were included in the
study.
While I considered examining additional EU (e.g., Spain or Sweden) or non-EU
(e.g., Canada or Australia) countries, the aim of my research was to isolate the different
approaches to web accessibility policy and predict similar or contrary results. Thus,
limiting my analysis to the UK, US and Norway provided enough variation to
demonstrate contrasting approaches while simultaneously providing the opportunity to
gather in-depth data on the norms, values and procedures of policy implementation.
The original aim of the research was to examine the institutional mediators that
occur nationally and contribute to the implementation of web accessibility policies.
However, two features, mostly unrelated to national implementation, became prominent
in my analysis: international features of standards and the role of interest organizations as
regulatory intermediaries. Consequently, I adjusted the focus of my analyses to
concentrate on aspects of “co-regulation”. Co-regulation refers to a shared “responsibility
for regulatory design or regulatory enforcement” (Levi-Faur, 2011). Co-regulation in web
6 accessibility can involve the participation of private enterprises and interest organizations
in policy design (e.g., the development of standards) or the participation of interest
organizations and private enterprises in enforcing web accessibility policies (e.g., through
auditing and certification).
In order to support my analysis empirically, I adopted a qualitative approach to data
collection. Qualitative methods are useful for providing in-depth information on “real
life” situations (Creswell, 2003; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Thus, qualitative methods
provide situated data based on an “on the ground” or “lived” experience of those
responsible for implementing and supporting the implementation of web accessibility
policies. Qualitative methods also provide a rich and holistic view capable of reflecting
the complexity of policy implementation and providing an opportunity for detailed and
impactful descriptions of specific contexts. I used a multi-method approach by combining
policy analyses with in-depth semi-structured interviews. While the policy analyses
provided useful information on explicit web accessibility norms, the semi-structured
interviews provided an opportunity to gather data on implicit norms. The combined
analysis of explicit and implicit norms gave me the opportunity to explore different
explanations for the limitations and opportunities inherent in the implementation of web
accessibility policies. Qualitative data also provides an opportunity to understand web
accessibility outcomes better, and to establish new data that enabled me to validate or
extend previous research and models of regulation.
In adopting qualitative methods, the data not only provides the empirical results, but also
informs further data collection and analysis. However, informing data collection and
analysis is not limited to a unidirectional influence between data and researcher.
Throughout my research, I continuously consulted, both formally and informally with
accessibility professionals, regulators, persons with disabilities, and academics. These
interactions acted as a continuous feedback loop that provided an integral opportunity to
inform and reframe my inquiry. Thus, I adopted a reflexive approach to research by
allowing a bidirectional influence between the research process and myself.
7 To understand the regulation of web accessibility, I benefitted from analyzing how
regulation operates in other sectors of society (e.g., labor relations, environment, health
and safety, and finance). These other regulatory regimes provided useful analogies for
understanding the nature and scope as well as the limitations and opportunities of web
accessibility policy.
- Key Point of departure: the gaps in the literature.
Though previous research has examined the impact of web accessibility in terms
of usability and the application of antidiscrimination laws to the web, very little research
has explored technology development and the institutional norms, values and procedures
that impact the implementation of national and international web accessibility policies
(Blanck, forthcoming 2015; Lazar et al., 2010; Olalere & Lazar, 2011; Wentz, Jaeger, &
Lazar, 2011). Thus, I aim to fill at least two gaps in the literature:
1.
Providing new models / perspectives – e.g. on the role of interest
organizations in policy implementation
2.
Applying existing theories to a new policy area – web accessibility
Surprisingly, previous research in web accessibility had yet to provide substantive
evidence on the intermediaries of policy implementation (Blanck, 2008; Myhill, Cogburn,
Samant, Addom, & Blanck, 2008). Research in other areas of regulation have extensively
examined how institutional features (i.e., the norms, values and procedures that constrain
or support) impact policy actors (e.g., enterprises, interest organizations, regulators, and
public agencies) and their roles in the implementation process (Coslovsky, 2011; Huising
& Silbey, 2011; Silbey, 2011). Nonetheless, limited research exists that examines the role
of interest organizations and how they can support policy implementation. The existing
literature on web accessibility has not examined the role of web accessibility subject
matter experts and disabled persons organizations (DPO). DPOs refer to interest
organizations led and run by persons with disabilities. The development of standards is
especially cogent to the involvement of interest organizations, including DPOs, as
standardization provides an opportunity for interest organizations to engage in developing
web accessibility policy. The collaborative efforts between public agencies, private
8 enterprises and interest organizations to promote voluntary standards blurs the lines
between traditional public and private sector boundaries.
Previous research demonstrates that international regimes made up of groups of
subject matter experts, private enterprises, regulators and interest organizations that are
united by a common interest influence the design of international and national regulations
(Adam & Kriesi, 2007; Krasner, 1983; Maggetti & Gilardi, 2011; Smith, 1993).
However, limited evidence exists examining,
•
The emergence of an international regulatory regime for web accessibility;
•
The actors that participate in web accessibility policy implementation; and
•
The relationship of policy actors promoting web accessibility and national
and international, mandatory and voluntary regulations.
- Top-down and bottom-up approaches to web accessibility
As an American, having worked in the private sector for large multinational enterprises,
local government and academia, my understanding of regulation previously involved two
polarized views.
1.
Regulation was a tolerated, though largely unnecessary, interference in
business activities
This view posits that by maximizing an individual’s autonomy and freedom of choice and
limiting the authority of the government, the free market will self-regulate. Thus, the
private sector takes a more active role in providing public services.
2.
Regulation was critical to ensuring public health, safety and social values.
This view posits that the government should make rules to support and enhance the use of
public goods and promote socially beneficial attitudes and behaviors. Thus, the public
sector provides a more active role in “steering” the private sector to produce social as
well as economic benefits.
These views reflect contrasting ideas on the role of the public sector. Thus, in researching
web accessibility, the blurred boundaries between public, private and voluntary sectors
influenced my perspective on the role of regulation. In addition, my previous views on
9 regulation largely adhere to a “top-down” policy approach. A “top-down” approach
characterizes implementation beginning with the enactment of a key piece of legislation
and focuses on the macro political institutions that shape how policy actors change
legislation into action (Hill & Hupe, 2008; Sabatier, 1986). Alternatively, my experience
with DREAM has exposed me to a new approach to implementation, commonly referred
to as “bottom-up”. A “bottom-up” perspective emphasizes the interrelations of public,
private and voluntary sector actors, and recognizes that implementation does not simply
revolve around the enactment of legislation (Hill & Hupe, 2008; Sabatier, 1986). Thus,
policy actors are integrated and relations develop and change over time.
Both of the top-down perspectives on regulation, as tolerated interference or as critical to
achieve social objectives and foster equal opportunities for all to participate in the
market, also assume a highly prescriptive approach that relies on coercion to support
compliance. In my work with DREAM, I have achieved a newfound understanding and
greater appreciation for voluntary approaches to regulation. These more flexible
approaches can encourage self-governance on a local and global scale. For example,
multinational enterprises have exercised a certain degree of regulatory authority over
their suppliers. In a bottom-up approach, private enterprises can have a useful role in
enforcing and promulgating social norms through business-to-business procurement.
From a top-down approach, the primary obstacle to change, or in the case of web
accessibility, regulatory compliance, has typically been perceived as the recalcitrance of
business. In addition, technology developers (e.g., programmers and engineers) have also
typically been perceived as obstacles to change. However, the view that business simply
represent an obstacle to compliance ignores areas of competence within the accessibility
industry. Several multinational enterprises (e.g., IBM and Microsoft) have been
forerunners of accessible technology development broadly and web accessibility in
particularly. Many technology developers including web programmers have provided a
basis for innovative technologies that promote usability and interoperability. Usability
and interoperability are fundamental aspects of accessibility. Thus, my data collection
and analysis in DREAM has shown me that the obstacles to achieving web accessibility
more accurately involve tensions within an enterprise. The obstacles to change often
10 include product designers that aim to target specific markets, typically by age, geography,
income, or family status. Product designers are often in the position to decide whether to
focus on accessibility or other criteria such as value, innovation or appeal. In addition,
obstacles to change also include lawyers and legal professionals that aim to exploit legal
ambiguities to reduce costs associated with compliance.
Finally, institutional bias against persons with disabilities has traditionally been a barrier
to achieving inclusion. Institutional bias refers to a tendency for procedures and practices
to disadvantage or devalue persons with disabilities. However, the institutional barriers
for web accessibility are not associated with negative attitudes or stereotypes – at least
not in the UK, US or Norway. In contrast, my research demonstrates how institutional
barriers for web accessibility are more strongly associated with a lack of knowledge or
awareness.
3.
My Formation as a Policy Entrepreneur.
The DREAM experience has provided many useful opportunities to learn about processes
of change. Change does not always happen as a “winner-takes-all”, “landslide” victory
(Hall, 2010; Hall & Thelen, 2009; Mahoney & Thelen, 2010a, 2010b; Thelen, 2009).
Change is frequently slow and incremental. The CRPD acknowledges these different
forms of change. While States Parties have an immediate obligation to secure the
minimum essential rights for persons with disabilities, the CRPD also provides for the
“progressive realization” of obligations such as web accessibility. Essentially, progressive
realization means that where States Parties cannot ensure web accessibility immediately,
they must work progressively towards achieving web accessibility.
According to my research, change also involves broadening the scope of the objective to
appeal to a larger population. In web accessibility, this has involved principles of
universal design. Universal design refers to web content designed for the largest possible
population. Thus, while web accessibility applies to the population of persons with
disabilities, universal design appeals to a much broader population including children,
11 older persons and persons that rely on ease of use due to environmental circumstances
(i.e., physically, cognitively or sensorial challenging environments).
According to my research, change also often requires consensus, a process that provides
an opportunity to identify shared values and promote dialogue. An argument could be
made that change required social struggles – opposition to status quo by DPOs –
necessary for establishing accessibility as a topic on the policy agenda. However, in my
research, consensus has been a fundamental procedure for standardization. Thus, web
accessibility standards have been developed in cooperation with private enterprises, DPO,
regulatory agencies and other standards organizations. In addition, DPO and interest
organizations have provided commercial services to support web accessibility
compliance. These services have functioned as a commercial incentive for enterprises and
interest organizations to cooperate in identifying shared values and collaborating in
support of policy implementation.
However, according to my research, change has been influenced by previously
established social norms, values and procedures. The historical development of web
accessibility as an objective for social inclusion and technological usability have shaped,
in many ways, the continued development of web accessibility as a policy objective.
Thus, the development of web accessibility standards by the private sector, the voluntary
approach to regulating the internet and the enforcement of web accessibility through
antidiscrimination regulations have all shaped the development of web accessibility by
constraining the potential options available to regulators.
Thus, change occurs based on previously institutionalized values. Regulations attempt to
manipulate those values and “steer” enterprises towards an investment in social, rather
than financial, objectives. However, regulations also provide an opportunity to
disseminate social values. The ADA contributed to the development of an international
regime aimed at remediating the social barriers of disability. The application of the ADA
and similar disability policies to the web contributed to an international regime that
12 emphasized the participation of persons with disabilities on the web. Web accessibility
policies further affected the development of regulations internationally.
- My role and training as a researcher.
Researchers provide a useful role in informing processes of change by “speaking
truth to power” (Goodin, Rein, & Moran, 2006). New knowledge provides a useful basis
to explore new policy opportunities and provides an empirical basis for national and
international policy actors to promote and disseminate ideas for change. The information
that researchers provide can contribute to the long-term direction of social policy (e.g., by
establishing models of policy processes that enable change) or short-term “spark of
innovation” that motivates responsive action (e.g., by promoting a new opportunity for
change). Thus, researchers can provide useful advice for legislators and regulators as
governments attempt to steer the market towards social policy objectives.
The DREAM training has prepared me to participate actively in advising policy
design and implementation as a researcher. The DREAM training involved five themes.
1.
Social model of disability
2.
Accessibility and social inclusion
3.
International human rights
4.
EU and the internal market
5.
Evidence informed policymaking
First, the DREAM training immersed me in a network of academics and practitioners that
share the same assumptions about disability: most adhere to a version of a social or
relational model of disability. Though interpretations vary, the social model of disability
provided a useful basis to understand not only the unique experiences of persons with
disabilities, but also provides a useful framework for understanding the role of human
rights in global society. The social model of disability refers to the barriers that contribute
to excluding persons with disabilities from participating in society. Second, as a
component of the social model of disability, accessibility provides the foundation for
achieving social inclusion. Accessibility refers to the design of a product, device, service
13 or environment to be usable by persons with disabilities. The DREAM training provided
me with the opportunity to unravel some of the complexities involved in the interaction
between accessibility and social inclusion. Third, human rights form the international
legal basis for the DREAM network as well as the DREAM training. The rights enshrined
in the CRPD have provided a new opportunity for persons with disabilities, academics,
legislators and businesses to cooperate in realizing these rights and obligations. Fourth,
the EU has an important role in supporting the CRPD and establishing an international
example for other countries. The DREAM training emphasized the role of the internal
market in regulating accessibility and continuing to promote the rights of persons with
disabilities. Fifth, the DREAM training provided clear guidance for informing policy in
my role as a researcher. DREAM has continually emphasized the role of researchers in
supporting social objectives while retaining academic impartiality. Through the DREAM
training, my research results have the opportunity to provide useful evidence for
supporting policy implementation and broader social changes.
The secondment internship at the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI) at Syracuse
University provided an opportunity to further develop my research abilities and connect
with practitioners. I principally worked with Peter Blanck and supported his efforts
working with persons with cognitive disabilities and promoting a right to the web. My
work at BBI connected my research in DREAM with different aspects of accessible
technology research and the experience of “on-the-ground” practitioners involved in
promoting accessible technology. Additionally, I was able to work with other researchers
at the BBI site in Washington DC. While in Washington DC, I worked extensively with
practitioners at public agencies involved in vocational rehabilitation for the State of
Nebraska and Kentucky.
4.
Tentative Outcomes & Recommendations.
Though my research continues to develop new insights into promoting and
achieving web accessibility, three results have emerged.
1.
A procedural standard for web accessibility provides a useful opportunity
to enhance voluntary compliance.
14 2.
Interest organizations have supported the implementation of web
accessibility policies nationally, and have begun to cooperate and establish web
accessibility norms, internationally.
3.
Performance and professional certification for web accessibility have
emerged in the US and UK, and provide a means for establishing cooperation
between interest organizations and private enterprises in achieving compliance.
These three themes relate to three, previously unaddressed, policy recommendations that
have emerged from my research findings.
1.
The need to develop an international procedural standard
2.
The need for a web accessibility professional association
3.
The need for a procedural accreditation
First, the British Standards Institution has developed a procedural standard (BS 8878) for
web accessibility. This standard provides guidance for enterprises aiming to integrate
accessibility into business processes. While BS 8878 was introduced in 2010, interest
organizations have yet to promote the standard and enterprises have yet to adopt the
standard in practice. My research findings demonstrate that BS 8878 provides a useful
opportunity to enhance voluntary compliance. Thus, in order to disseminate effective web
accessibility practices I suggest that an international standards organization (e.g., the
W3C, ISO or ESO) develop an international procedural standard based on BS 8878.
Second, web accessibility professionals operate in many countries in very similar
capacities. Web accessibility professionals primarily support the implementation of web
accessibility policies. However, the competence of the professionals vary. Thus, a
professional association could provide a useful mechanism for establishing professional
norms and guidance for web accessibility professionals embedded in enterprises and
interest organizations. In addition, a professional association could provide education and
training standards for accessibility practitioners, thus reassuring enterprises of the quality
of accessibility professionals. As national borders do not bind the web, establishing a
professional association for web accessibility requires an international presence to be
15 optimally effective. My research demonstrates that interest organizations have supported
the implementation of web accessibility policies nationally, and have begun to cooperate
and establish web accessibility norms, internationally. Thus, I suggest that enterprises and
interest organizations collaborate in establishing an international professional association
for web accessibility. An international professional association for web accessibility
practitioners could be embedded within the International Association of Accessibility
Professionals (IAAP).
Third, many interest organizations offer web accessibility certification aimed at
encouraging compliance among private enterprises. However, these certification
initiatives have been based on international performance standards. Performance
standards refer to technical requirements for the design of web content. Web accessibility
certification has been utilized by many proactive enterprises. However, a compliance
“gap” still remains among enterprises. A procedural certification could provide a useful
mechanism for filling that gap as procedural certification allows enterprises to
progressively establish web accessibility and integrate web accessibility throughout
different departments in the enterprise. Thus, procedural certification provides an
opportunity not simply remediate inaccessible web content, but to establish ongoing
procedures that enhance long-term compliance.
My vision for change in web accessibility, exemplified in the previous
recommendations, involves focusing less on prescriptively regulating accessibility (i.e.,
the top-down approach). Alternatively, my vision for change focuses on developing
responsive policies that encourage cooperation, the progressive realization of web
accessibility and ultimately compliance that extends the benefits of web accessibility
beyond legislative or regulatory requirements (i.e., the bottom-up approach). Procedural
standards have provided a useful framework for pursuing web accessibility holistically.
However, the procedural approach has only begun to emerge and considerable efforts are
still required to understand how the approach can be implemented in practice.
16 While many barriers exist to realizing web accessibility as a policy objective,
business recalcitrance has yet to emerge as an obstruction. In contrast however,
businesses have typically remained open minded to inclusion on the web, especially if a
commercial opportunity allows the enterprises to recoup investment in accessibility.
However, there are a lack of flexible policy options to support incremental change. By
providing more flexible compliance options that address the internal barriers that
businesses face in implementing web accessibility, policy actors could provide new
opportunities for accessibility to develop beyond legislative mandates. The
recommendations of my research begin to lay a foundation for future reforms of web
accessibility policy.
The DREAM network and training has provided me with critical insights on the
success factors for achieving web accessibility. The principal basis for success involves
long-term cooperation between enterprises and interest organizations. A cooperative
approach to ensuring accessibility not only provides opportunities to develop compliance
strategies but also provides insights into how enterprises can extend web accessibility
beyond minimum requirements. However, this approach requires flexibility. Thus, in
cooperating with enterprises, interest organizations bear equal responsibility for web
accessibility outcomes. By maintaining flexibility, interest organizations can integrate
web accessibility throughout an organization rather than relying on more coercive
mechanisms for compliance.
References
Adam, S., & Kriesi, H. (2007). The network approach. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories
of the policy process. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Blanck, P. (2008). Flattening the (inaccessible) cyberworld for people with disabilities.
Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA, 20(3), 175-180.
Blanck, P. (forthcoming 2015). eQuality: Web Rights, Human Flourishing, and Persons
with Cognitive Disabilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17 Act June 20 2008 No 42 relating to a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of
disability (the Anti-Discrimination and Accessibility Act) Unofficial translation
(2008).
Coslovsky, S. V. (2011). Relational regulation in the Brazilian Ministério Publico: The
organizational basis of regulatory responsiveness. Regulation & Governance,
5(1), 70-89.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage Publ.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (1995).
EC. (2005). Standardisation Mandate to CEN, CENELEC AND ETSI in Suport of
European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products and
Services in the ICT Domain M 376 - EN, 7 December. Brussels: Commission of
the European Communities Retrieved from
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/aboutETSI/EC_Mandates/m376en.pdf
(accessed March 2014).
EC. (2011). Consultation Document European Accessibility Act.
Equality Act 2010, United Kingdom (2010).
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social
sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Giannoumis, G. A. (2014). Regulating Web Content: the nexus of legislation and
performance standards in the United Kingdom and Norway. Behavioral Sciences
& the Law, 32(1), 52-75.
Giannoumis, G. A., & Halvorsen, R. (2012). How do social institutions influence EAccessibility polices in the UK, US, and Norway? Paper presented at the 8th
International Conference on Evaluation for Practice, Pori Finland.
Goodin, R. E., Rein, M., & Moran, M. (2006). The Public and its Policies. In M. Moran,
M. Rein & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hall, P. A. (2010). Historical Institutionalism in Rationalist and Sociological Perspective.
In J. Mahoney & K. A. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change :
18 ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hall, P. A., & Thelen, K. (2009). Institutional change in varieties of capitalism. SocioEconomic Review, 7(1), 7-34.
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2008). Implementing public policy : an introduction to the study of
operational governance. London: Sage.
Huising, R., & Silbey, S. S. (2011). Governing the gap: Forging safe science through
relational regulation. Regulation & Governance, 5(1), 14-42.
Hvinden, B., & Halvorsen, R. (2003). Which way for european disability policy?
Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 5(3), 296-312. doi:
10.1080/15017410309512631
Krasner, S. D. (1983). International regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lazar, J., Jaeger, P. T., Adams, A., Angelozzi, A., Manohar, J., Marciniak, J., . . . Walsh,
J. (2010). Up in the air: Are airlines following the new DOT rules on equal
pricing for people with disabilities when websites are inaccessible? Government
Information Quarterly Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 329-336.
Levi-Faur, D. (2011). Regulation and regulatory governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.),
Handbook on the Politics of Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.
Maggetti, M., & Gilardi, F. (2011). The policy-making structure of European regulatory
networks and the domestic adoption of standards. Journal of European Public
Policy, 18(6), 830-847.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. A. (2010a). Explaining institutional change : ambiguity,
agency, and power. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. A. (2010b). A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change. In J.
Mahoney & K. A. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change : ambiguity,
agency, and power. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis : an expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review, 31(2), 187211. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1983.tb00387.x
19 Myhill, W. N., Cogburn, D. L., Samant, D., Addom, B. K., & Blanck, P. (2008).
Developing accessible cyberinfrastructure-enabled knowledge communities in the
national disability community: theory, practice, and policy. Assistive technology :
the official journal of RESNA, 20(3), 157-174.
Olalere, A., & Lazar, J. (2011). Accessibility of U.S. federal government home pages:
Section 508 compliance and site accessibility statements. Government
Information Quarterly, 28(3), 303-309.
Public Law 101-336: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Stat. 328 (1994).
Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method : moving beyond qualitative and
quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation
Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy,
6(01).
Silbey, S. S. (2011). The sociological citizen: Pragmatic and relational regulation in law
and organizations. Regulation and Governance, 5(1), 1-13.
Smith, M. J. (1993). Pressure, power, and policy : state autonomy and policy networks in
Britain and the United States. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Thelen, K. (2009). Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. British Journal
of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 471-498.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Optional protocol. New York: United Nations.
Wentz, B., Jaeger, P. T., & Lazar, J. (2011). Retrofitting accessibility: The legal
inequality of after-the-fact online access for persons with disabilities in the United
States. First Monday, 16(11).
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research : design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
20