12.2 support services & Web Accessibility Directive

Hi, in the WAD, there is in its article 7 an obligation to publish and maintain an accessibility statement, and this statement should provide a feedback mechanism to the users. We are wondering if this feedback mechanism should be considered as a support service such as the one defined in 12.2.1.

"ICT support services include, but are not limited to: help desks, call centres, technical support, relay services and training services."

For us, the feedback mechanism enables the user to contact a technical support dedicated to answering questions about the digital accessibility of a website or mobile application.

Is it how it should be interpreted? Is the feedback mechanism of the WAD a technical support in the sense of 12.2.1? In this case, could it be added to the list of examples in 12.2.1?

As a general point, many companies treat "support" and "feedback" very differently.

• Support is where you go to seek a solution to a problem, usually where you don't understand something or where the product isn't doing as you expect. You want the answer now, since you want to resolve your issue. As such it is personal and if you want help from a human, it will not really be anonymous.

• Feedback tends to be more of a marketing tool, where users can say what they like or don't like. Yes, it can sometimes be used to report bugs, but there will not be any expectation of a personal or immediate response. Feedback is used to guide development of updates and new products, not to solve issues for individuals. It is often completely anonymous, and may only be delivered in aggregate.

Now, having said they are different things, you've raised the interesting question of whether they should be treated the same for Accessibility purposes.

I would certainly like to see accessible feedback, but I suppose this is not listed in the Act because it really isn't essential for doing anything with the product. Many products have no feedback mechanism at all for anybody.

So perhaps we need a SHALL for accessibility of SUPPORT mechanisms, but only a SHOULD for accessibility of FEEDBACK mechanisms. Where the two functions are combined in a single mechanism as Alain suggests in the Issue text, I think a SHALL will be necessary to ensure the Act is followed.

I agree with you on the difference between support and feedback. But the way it is explained in the directive could be understood as a support service:

"a feedback mechanism enabling any person to notify the public sector body concerned of any failure of its website or mobile application to comply with the accessibility requirements set out in Article 4 and to request the information excluded pursuant to Article 1(4) and Article 5 [...] Member States shall ensure that public sector bodies give an adequate response to the notification or request within a reasonable period of time."

Moreover in the implementing act 2018/1523 defining a template for the web accessibility directive, we can find the following text: "Feedback and contact information [Provide a description of, and a link to, the feedback mechanism to be used to notify the public sector body of any compliance failures and to request information and content excluded from the scope of the Directive]. [Provide the contact information of the relevant entity(ies)/unit(s)/person(s) (as appropriate) responsible for accessibility and for processing requests sent through the feedback mechanism]."

This part about requesting information is for me somehow related to a support service.

I agree with the point made by @vagnera. The reference in the directive is a very specific case of feedback, not really related to marketing as @jeffreym describes. I think that, in this case, the feedback mechanism really is a support service.

Hi, @vagnera , @jeffreym , and @pluke !

If I understand correctly, then Alain monitors compliance with WAD in Luxembourg. I do the same in Estonia; thus, we are close colleagues in the sense that we do the same job but in different EU Member States, and because of that, it is very valuable to have discussions like the current one to maintain consistency in the application of pan-EU legislation :) .

I am going to say in advance that I use the "Luxembourgian approach" and the "Estonian approach" only for distintive purposes; we don't have any competition between the two!

The "Estonian approach" to the question has been different from the "Luxembourgian approach". As Alain explains in his comments, the "Luxembourgian approach" would like to interpret the feedback mechanism as a support service. The "Estonian approach" has focused on the "Provide the contact information of the relevant entity(ies)/unit(s)/person(s)" part of the implementing act 2018/1523 (the part is also quoted by Alain in his latter comment). 

This means that in Estonian national guidelines, we request in the accessibility statements only to publicise the contact details of public sector bodies (e.g., email address and phone number). Moreover, when we assess compliance with EN 301 549, we don't apply the mandatory 12.2 support services requirements (namely, requirements 12.2.2, 12.2.3, and 12.2.4) to the feedback mechanisms described in accessibility statements. We apply these requirements only in cases where there is customer support (e.g., for evaluating compliance with requirement 12.2.2 Information on accessibility and compatibility features, an evaluator has to call customer support). Fortunately, a more stringent "Estonian approach" doesn't preclude use cases for requirements in clause 12.2: according to our interpretation, we have evaluated the Health Portal, the State Portal, the e-services environment of the Tax and Customs Board, the website of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the website of the Social Insurance Board, etc. against the requirements in the last years. 

But as said, my main point is not to create competition between different EU Member States!

My main point is to show that different Member States may approach the same question differently, and it seems correct to ask for more feedback from the respective authorities of Member States before STF takes a position on it. Maybe it is good to have that discussion in WADEX (Alain and I are both members of it) or to ask opinions from representatives of the Member States who are already involved in the modification of EN 301 549 (e.g., @sepib from Denmark and @ilias.bennani from Sweden).

Many thanks for the feedback @puskar! Indeed, this was just our interpretation (and at the beginning of this ticket, just a question) and this point has not yet been discussed in the WADEX group for example AFAIK. Your approach seems sound, to see how the different monitoring bodies have interpreted this. If there are different interpretations, and it is already the case between Luxembourg and Estonia, then there is a need to clarify this point, and to me, it should be clarified at the level of the EN 301 549.

Edit: I have posted a link to this issue in the WADEX Group on MS Teams.

marked this issue as related to #238

mentioned in issue #238

As I wrote in response to Issue #238, I think that the feedback mechanism related to the accessibility statement should be considered as a support service, and therefore within the scope of the separate Harmonised Standard on "the accessibility of support services", as it would seem somewhat strange for EN 301 549 to specify detail of how such a service that is providing information/support to users of a service should operate in a different way to all other types of services that are generally understood to be support services.

If this is the case, then EN 301 549 will probably need to explicitly name the feedback mechanism as a support service in 12.2.1, which would then point to the other Harmonised Standard for requirements that apply to all such services, including that related to the feedback mechanism.

12.2.2 already addresses "Information on accessibility and compatibility features" related to products. On the services side, what is ultimately needed is an equivalent way to express what is needed.

I agree with @pluke comments. In my opinion, the WAD-required accessibility feedback is a support service, and clause 12.2 applies. And I don't see any reason for any service claiming that their web (or mobile app) conforms to WAD to not provide an accessible "accessibility feedback" in the terms of clauses 12.2.1, 12.2.2, 12.2.3 and 12.2.4.

But I also think that this discussion is outside of scope for EN 301 549, as the requirement for accessibility feedback is part of the WAD regulation. It seems a very good issue to agree on for WADEX.

Could you be a bit more specific why do you think this requirement is outside of the scope of EN 301 549? For me, it is the role of this standard to define some common agreed upon rules in the frame of the WAD and EAA. The standard is there to support the application of these directives. This point can indeed be discussed in the frame of the WADEX group, but if we reach a consensus, we should write it down somewhere and to my mind, the EN may be a good place to do it.

Hi,

Thanks, @vagnera , for sharing the issue with WADEX! I am going to post the current text both to the GitLab issue and the WADEX group chat.

I analysed a bit about why we in Estonia have understood that "the feedback mechanism", as explained in 2018/1523, is not the same as "support services", as explained in EN 301 549 V.3.2.1 clause 12.2:

• 2018/1523 explains that the feedback mechanism is to be used to notify the public sector body of any compliance failures and to request information and content excluded from the scope of the WAD. I understand it basically the same as explained by Mark Jeffrey in Gitlab: "It can sometimes be used to report bugs, but there will not be any expectation of a personal or immediate response. Feedback is used to guide development of updates and new products, not to solve issues for individuals."
• Clause 12.2.1 in the EN says that "ICT support services include, but are not limited to: help desks, call centres, technical support, relay services and training services." Yes, the clause is informative and contains the phrase "include, but are not limited to", but most of the examples indicate different forms of active and personal customer support. Again, I borrow the words of Mark: "You want the answer now, since you want to resolve your issue. As such it is personal and if you want help from a human, it will not really be anonymous."
• While I made the first Estonian guidelines on drafting the accessibility statement, I searched for some examples of other Member States, and I got the same impression from the examples I found (however, I didn't search for examples of absolutely every Member State).

By the way, our blank for public sector bodies to make their own accessibility statement includes a sentence: "We will usually reply to you in [response time]." Thus, we indicate to public sector bodies that there should be a reasonable deadline by which a citizen is going to get a reply (I haven't made explicit statistics regarding it, but it seems that the most commonly used sentence is "we will usually reply within 5 working days."). That means that we treat the feedback mechanism as almost like the support service (instead of responding "now," as said by Mark, it is allowed to respond in a longer timeframe).

My proposal is to clarify clause 12.2 in EN 301 549, if we intend to treat the feedback mechanism as a support service. For me personally, it seems that 2018/1523 and clause 12.2 don't speak about exactly the same thing (i.e., it is not correct to put the equality sign between the two). One option to overcome that obstacle is to make the meaning of "support service" in the EN wider (i.e., support services are not only these kinds of customer support that respond now, but they are also allowed to respond in a longer timeframe, etc.).

added 1 deleted label

added Related to another EN label

removed 1 deleted label

added EAA Alignment label

added Documentation and Support Services label

removed EAA Alignment label

As a result of adopting the proposed changes from Issue #541 (closed), this requirement, and all others that concern the content of information about ICT are not appropriate to the scope of EN 301 549. It is the "non-digital" HEN and the "support services" HEN that will need to address all such issues.

closed