KEVIN CAREY, who is the Head of eInclusion Consultancy at ATcare, Chair Elect of the Royal National Institute of Blind People, says that Digital Britain does not take enough account of the needs of blind and partially sighted people.
Even as I write, the issue of the access by blind and partially sighted people to on-screen menus and digital television electronic programme guides (EPGs) is still unresolved. Here is an instance where the Government chose to over-ride market forces and legislate for the turning off of the analogue television signal without ensuring that adequate provision was made for people with sight problems: the Government Department for trade, in its serial manifestations, the BBC, Ofcom, Digital UK, the Digital Television Group all busied themselves passing the parcel, with the result that, because everybody was responsible, nobody was.
And so, five years before the switch-off, manufacturers were publicly stating that they could not make on-screen menus and EPGs accessible. Despite of RNIB raising the issue, and whilst other access issues were being addressed, EPG accessibility was not included in the technical specification for a set-top box for the switchover "Government Help Scheme". RNIB has put its hand in its pocket and invested £1.7 million to show manufacturers that producing an accessible EPG is both possible and economically viable, and things are now slowly starting to move - too late for those whose regions have already switched or are about to switch to digital TV.
I have started with this story because, from the standpoint of blind and partially sighted people, the most immediate danger is the inaccessibility of digital radio sets which might be forced on us if the analogue radio signal is switched off. As digital radios introduce on-screen information, menus on screen, EPGs and even touch-screen technology, we could see a repeat of what has happened with digital TV. The notion that blind people are barred from access to radio is scandalous; it must not become a reality.
Yet this is only the most egregious instance of exclusion. Although, for example, the promotion of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WA*) Guidelines (WCAG 1.0 * 2.0) has been a great public relations success, it has largely been a political failure. With some honourable exception, Government and major corporations are serious accessibility infractors; and the pressure of multi-lingual domestic markets, global markets and the falling cost of digital images is bound to put extra pressure on accessibility for those with sight problems in particular.
We realise that there are other groups of citizens who have particular accessibility needs and we do not wish to compete with them for funding and attention. Our major goal is the establishment of a generic right in the European Union of all citizens to access information in the public domain. We reject the idea that information can be put into the public domain and then withheld from people because of highly fantastic piracy scenarios. The idea that blind and partially sighted people will use digital information for their personal economic advantage is preposterous and without precedent or evidence; if something is worth pirating, we can be sure that commercial pirates will do the business!
While we campaign for a generic right of access, there are a number of measures that the Digital Britain initiative should adopt:
First, as already implied, blind and partially sighted people should have a right of access to all broadcasting and broadcasting metadata either funded by the BBC Licence Fee or licensed by Ofcom. A regulatory adjustment may also be required to bring EPGs into the Ofcom ambit. It follows from this that accessibility should be seen as an end-to-end phenomenon; we do not want a repeat of the late analogue scenario where broadcasters were required to produce audio description but there was no device on the market to decode it. The deregulation of consumer electronics, computer hardware, telecommunications devices and digital data user interfaces in parallel with increased pressure for the regulation of the accessibility of digital data is surreal.
Secondly, the public sector should comply with its own accessibility legislation and regulation; and it should use its procurement processes to specify the accessibility of all its purchases based on properly researched user requirements. Critically, this needs to include vital programmes like that which aims to supply home computers to children who need them where accessibility should not be an after-thought; if the 'Third World' One Laptop per Child has an accessibility requirement, why not our own domestic programme?
Thirdly, the Government should make accessibility a condition of licence for all those activities which is licenses. Regulated broadcasting has been a great success but the same kind of accessibility regime has not been imposed on the telecommunications industry, banking, public utilities and major retail. As long as the imposition is transparent and fair, as it is with broadcasting, industry should have no complaint.
Fourthly, the blind and partially sighted community has rightly concentrated on broadcasting and the accessibility of digital data but in the 21st Century people will need to create to survive; and this is where my personal interest lies. No major digital authoring tools are accessible. A first step would be to put the WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines (ATAG 2.0) on the same legal footing as WCAG but, as we have seen, that is not really enough. Whether or not Web 2.0 will become economically significant, it is already a forum for a broad range of resources for entertainment, lifestyle, citizenship, learning, employment and well being. It is also important that we develop collaborative tools that people with sight problems can use to work with others to generate economically valuable product. It is, for example, unspeakably sad that most audio editing and radio studio equipment is inaccessible.
I should also put in a brief note about the need to integrate robotics and GPS/LBS systems to enable people with sight problems to maximise their independence; these sorts of systems should provide a higher quality and a cheaper service than dogs. The adaptation of telecare solutions for the elderly, many of whom are blind and partially sighted, is crucial if they are to stay out of hospitals and care homes for as long as possible.
This may sound like a catalogue of complaint but much of what I am advocating would be of general benefit to all citizens; but I have one final proposal which is an obvious win/win. As the Government faces massive public sector expenditure cuts, particularly in 'back office' operations, and is looking to increase online delivery of services, one obvious precondition for further automation and greater access to eGovernment services is the simplification of its online forms. These are increasingly used for a range of services such as claiming benefits or applying for jobs. Making them straightforward will save money and improve accessibility.
RNIB looks forward to working with Digital Britain and the Digital Inclusion Task Force to improve the life chances of all blind and partially sighted people within the context of better life chances for all citizens.
