By Finn Petrén, Vice President, EIDD Sweden

Design for All is the key to the Information Society. The way ahead might not be European standardization mechanisms.

The development and design of products and services within the field of information and communication technology (ICT) can not be based on the ‘average human being’. It must take a wide range of human abilities into account. “Design for All is the key, but where is the door?” asks Finn Petrén, director of Nordic Co-operation on Disability and the Nordic Council on Disability Policy. Petrén, who also is Vice-President of EIDD Sweden, reflects:

Managing the transformation of Europe into an Information Society for All is one of the central economic and social challenges facing Europe today. The challenge is highly political and the response will impact profoundly on European employment, growth and productivity for decades ahead.

This is the rationale behind the eEurope initiative launched by the European Commission earlier this year. The document states clearly that eEurope aims at ensuring that Europe’s transformation into an Information Society is cohesive, not divisive. The benefits of the Information Society must be brought to the reach of all Europeans.

There is no doubt about the Commission’s goodwill, nor about its rhetorical capacity.

Last year the Commission mandated the European standardisation committee to examine the issue of Design for All and Assistive Technology in ICT standardisation. Earlier this year, a project team working under the auspices of the ICT Standards Board finished a report, which seeks to identify future needs for standardisation and draws up an extensive work programme for the European Standards bodies, with a large number of detailed tables.

Again, there is no ground for doubt about the Commission’s and the standardisation body’s goodwill, but what about the practical basis for action? After reading the report and the executive summary, my doubts about whether standardisation is the right path to significant Design for All results had only increased.

With all due respect for a group of skilful and dedicated people, it is worth noting that the mission to putthe Design for All perspective into the mainstream development of new ICT applications has been taken on mainly by persons who have their prime expertise in assistive technology. So it comes as no surprise that the Design for All perspective tends to be overrun by – or at least blurred with – the assistive technology aspects. This leads to confusion on the political level, which at best is being solved by putting more money into R&D in assistive technology.

Since the late 1980s, we in the Nordic countries have tried to gear Nordic co-operation involving all available expertise within the field to put the issue of accessibility onto the political agenda. Our success has been limited when it comes to the area of IT.

Within the framework of the NORDICT programme (Nordic Co-operation on ICT Standardisation and Disability), background material and action plans have been compiled within various segments of the IT market. The NORDICT results have also been transferred to the project team working for the ICT Standards Board and form an essential part of the substance in the report I mentioned above.

Two editions of Nordic Guidelines on Computer Accessibility (the latest in 1998) have been used to some extent in public procurement in Sweden and Denmark. The Nordic Forum for Telecommunications and Disability is a third example of programmes under the heading of Nordic Co-operation on Disability dealing with accessibility issues in the mainstream development of new ICT applications.

The results of these far-reaching efforts have not yet been put to as much use as might be desired. One reason for this is the lack of a clear target: most Nordic countries have not yet defined political responsibility for accessibility aspects in the ICT-field with sufficient clarity.

This year’s advent of a new Nordic Council of Ministers for IT-policy may improve things: the ministers’ committee of senior officials for IT-policy has agreed to dialogue with the Nordic Co-operation on Disability (NSH), both regarding mutual support for the governments’ ambitions to make the information society accessible to all, and for the NSH’s work in developing guidelines and other statutory documents for governments and public authorities in the Nordic countries.

Common Nordic political standpoints and documents in the form of Design for All guidelines in the ICT field are also poised to strengthen common efforts being undertaken on a European level, in the interests of an information society that works for everyone.

To recapitulate, I have growing doubts about whether the European standardisation mechanisms are the most useful tool for bringing about significant Design for All achievements in the ICT-field.

The alternative is public procurement: whether and how this instrument should be supported by legislation must be the subject of careful analysis in a European context. But I am convinced that an obligation for all ICT companies taking part in public procurement to specify to what extent their products comply with existing Design for All guidelines is more likely to get things going than the long and winding road to technical standards.

Published in Crisp & Clear No. 3, October 2000