OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Stichting drempelvrij.nl

drempelvrij.nl

Het doel van de Stichting drempelvrij.nl is: - het mede vanuit gebruikersperspectief bevorderen van de onbelemmerde toegang tot het internet voor alle gebruikers, in het bijzonder voor gebruikers met een functiebeperking, en om daartoe de noodzakelijke activiteiten te ontwikkelen; - het opzetten, beheren en uitvoeren van de kwaliteitsregeling Waarmerk drempelvrij ten behoeve van personen met een functiebeperking en het bevorderen van de naleving van die regeling door toezicht. - in samenwerking met partners het opzetten van een DDAI platform waar gebruikers en partners kennis en ervaring delen omtrent digitale toegankelijkheid en inclusie.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Commission implementing decision on establishing a model accessibility statement under the WAD

13 Jun 2018

The drempelvrij foundation doubts that this model will contribute to the harmonization of accessibility declarations, which is, after all, the objective of this document. According to Directive (EU) 2016/2102, 50: A harmonised monitoring methodology would provide for a description of the way of verifying, on a uniform basis in all Members States, the degree of compliance with the accessibility requirements, the collection of representative samples and the periodicity of the monitoring. In the Model accessibility statement and the Annex the definition of terms is not applied unambiguous: confirming and compliance, partial compliant, etc. In order to make a comparison possible based on the requirements, unambiguity of concepts is essential. The drempelvrij foundation therefore recommends to use the W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. Also interesting in this context is the ACT Taskforce, that aims to make accessibility testing transparent, and so minimise the confusion caused by different interpretations of accessibility guidelines. Article 3, 1a / 1b In the experience of the drempelvrij foundation, only an assessment carried out by a third party can independently determine whether the website complies with the requirements and guarantees access to all users. The drempelvrij foundation regrets that the Commission leaves the preparation of the statement open to choice, since a self-assessment and ‘any other measures’ do not provide equal assurance that the declarations made in the statement are accurate. Therefore, we recommend to make an independent assessment carried out by a third party mandatory. At least for the monitoring. Annex Model accessibility statement Section 2, 1 Naturally following the feedback on Article 3, 1a / 1b, the drempelvrij foundation pleads to make optional content (1) a link to an evaluation report a mandatory requirement to ensure an actual (preferably independent) evaluation of the website has taken place.
Read full response

Response to Commission implementing decision on establishing a monitoring methodology and arrangements for reporting under the WAD

13 Jun 2018

Preface The drempelvrij foundation doubts that this monitoring method will contribute to the harmonization of accessibility declarations, which is, after all, the objective of this document. According to Directive (EU) 2016/2102, 50: A harmonised monitoring methodology would provide for a description of the way of verifying, on a uniform basis in all Members States, the degree of compliance with the accessibility requirements, the collection of representative samples and the periodicity of the monitoring. In the Model accessibility statement and the Annex the definition of terms is not applied unambiguous: confirming and compliance, partial compliant, etc. In order to make a comparison possible based on the requirements, unambiguity of concepts is essential. The drempelvrij foundation therefore recommends to use the W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. Also interesting in this context is the ACT Taskforce, that aims to make accessibility testing transparent, and so minimise the confusion caused by different interpretations of accessibility guidelines. Annex 1 Monitoring Paragraph 2.1.2 / 2.1.4 For The Netherlands, based on 17 million inhabitants, the minimum sample size for the simplified monitoring of websites is 415 websites; the minimum sample size for in-depth monitoring is only 51 websites. This will do no more than scratch the surface of inaccessibility. In theory, since the Member States make their own selection of the sample, they could only include those websites that have been tested independently and comply with the requirements. The drempelvrij foundation recommends the sample of websites to be determined by an independent committee. Paragraph 2.2.4 Article 8(5) of Directive (EU) 2016/2102, referred to in Article 9 (d) of the Monitoring methodology, stipulates that the report shall cover a description of the mechanisms set up by Member States for consulting with relevant stakeholders on the accessibility of websites and mobile applications. The drempelvrij foundation would therefore recommend to put the added ‘through their representative organisations’ between brackets, which means that persons with disabilities can also be consulted through their own representatives.
Read full response