Regulating Web Content: The Nexus of Legislation and Performance Standards in the United Kingdom and Norway

Abstract

Despite different historical traditions, previous research demonstrates a convergence between regulatory approaches in the United Kingdom and Norway. To understand this convergence, this article examines how different policy traditions influence the legal obligations of performance standards regulating web content for use by persons with disabilities. While convergence has led to similar policy approaches, I argue that national policy traditions have an impact on how governments establish legal obligations for standards compliance. The analysis reveals that national policy traditions influenced antidiscrimination legislation and the capacity and authority of regulatory agencies, which impacted the diverging legal obligations of standards in the United Kingdom and Norway. The analysis further suggests that policy actors mediate the reciprocal influence between national policy traditions and regulatory convergence mechanisms.

Articulating a right to the Web for persons with cognitive disabilities

“…Thus, while Norwegian legislation obligates service providers to ensure the universal design of ICT solutions, Norwegian regulators have attempted to clarify this obligation by adopting Web accessibility standards (WCAG 2.0). The Norwegian example shows the juxtaposition of law and policy, and universal design and Web accessibility [2]. eQuality attempts to further clarify the relationship between universal design principles and Web accessibility by discussing how these concepts may be effectively integrated in practice to further a right to the Web for persons with cognitive disabilities.…”

Information and Communications Technology and Social Media Accessibility in China

“…Research has also examined the implementation of web accessibility law and policy (Ellis & Kent, 2011;Giannoumis, 2014a). According to Ellis and Kent (2011), "[b]ecause accessibility is a choice, it is inherently a political decision" (p. 150).…”

“…The authors argue that the legal requirements for web accessibility in Australia may not act as a panacea for promoting web accessibility outcomes. Research in the UK, Norway, USA and European Union has similarly concluded that complex and contravening factors mediate the implementation of web accessibility law and policy (Giannoumis, 2014a(Giannoumis, , 2014b(Giannoumis, , 2015a(Giannoumis, , 2015c. To date, the myriad national and international law and policy efforts have yet to substantively reduce the "digital Ding, Zhao & Giannoumis: page 4 divide" between persons who can use the web and persons who, due to the design of web content, experience barriers in using the web (Blanck, 2014a;Ragnedda & Muschert, 2013).…”

eQuality: Web Accessibility by People With Cognitive Disabilities

“…The web is a major driver of these principles, and particularly for people with cognitive disabilities (Imrie, 2012;Schur, Kruse, & Blanck, 2013). For this reason, the lack of equal opportunity to participate on the web, whereby separate access to web content becomes the default means for interaction, is inherently not equal for people with cognitive and other disabilities who aim to enjoy such services (Giannoumis, 2014).…”