Results of the 3rd OSSATE International Workshop,
Brussels 12 May 2006

The OSSATE Project Team at Toegankelijkheidsbureau, organised the third OSSATE International Workshop held in Belgium on 12 May 2006. The workshop was kindly hosted by The Flemish Tourist Board, at their Headquarters, situated just a stone’s throw from the famous ‘Grand Place’ of Brussels.

This event was attended by the OSSATE partners and a specially invited group of participants, representing organisations from 5 different countries: Austria, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden and The Netherlands. The purpose of this workshop was to exchange experiences on issues concerning accessible tourism information schemes, including data-collection and the presentation of information via new media channels.

The workshop began with an introduction to “EuropeforAll.com”, the accessible tourism e-service, which is being developed by OSSATE.

This was followed by presentations from representatives of the participating information schemes.

The workshop concluded with a visit to the Accessible Travel Info Point, which is a service of the Flemish Tourist Board providing travel and tourist information to people with disabilities.

Programme 3rd International OSSATE Workshop (includes list of participants)

Download the Workshop Programme in English – PDF - Filesize: 31 Kb

Presentations

Overview of the OSSATE Project Objectives and Approach
Ivor Ambrose, EWORX S.A. Greece
Download the Presentation - PDF - Filesize: 1.3 Mb

Case Study: ‘VisitOslo.com’
Katrine Mosfjeld and Bodil Sandøy, VisitOslo.com, Norway
Download the Presentation - Acrobat PDF - Filesize: 446 Kb

Case Study: ‘IBFT Austria’
Angelika and Simon Laburda, IBFT, Austria‚
Download the Speech - PDF - Filesize: 58 Kb
Download the Presentation - PDF - Filesize: 2 Mb

Case Study: ‘Accessibility Denmark’
Mette Röhe, Foreningen tilgængelighed for alle, Denmark
Download the Presentation - PDF - Filesize: 256 Kb

Case Study: ‘Tourism for All’ Information Services in Sweden
Lilian Müller, Turism för alla i Sverige
Download the Presentation - PDF - Filesize: 145 Kb

Case Study: ‘CARE Project’
Anna Quartucci, Laboratorio Sipuo, Italy
Download the Presentation - PDF - Filesize: 172 Kb

Results

Briefly summarising the discussions which took place during the 3rd OSSATE International Workshop, it was evident that the accessible information schemes and projects which were described had several things in common.

• The main group of target users for access information is people with disabilities. It is widely acknowledged that accessibility information is useful to all kinds of travellers, both disabled and non-disabled.
• In all the described schemes, organisations of people with disabilities have played an active role in setting the specifications for the accessibility of destinations and venues. These specifications tend to have been derived from lists of "ideal conditions" for different disabled user groups, rather than through analysis of actual access problems at existing tourist venues. Perhaps for this reason, a 100% access level for all user groups is hardly ever reached by any venue.
• Accessibility specifications can be very detailed. Data collection at venues requires specialist skills and a lot of time.
• Detailed access specifications are necessary for some users to make a reliable judgement about whether they can use a venue or not.
• When publishing access data on websites, too much information can be a nuisance to users. Instead, allowing users to select different pre-defined sets of information or allowing them to request personalised results can improve the usefulness of the database to the end user.
• Published feedback about the actual experience of accessibility (successes and failures) by visitors does not occur widely.

Notably, some access information schemes include "certification", that is, they indicate whether the premises conform to national access standards. However, proving that a place conforms to regulated standards cannot guarantee full access for all. Nor do users usually know the access standards in their own country, let alone the standardsin other countries.

Other schemes use a 'descriptive approach', offering users an objective description of access conditions, so that the visitor can decide whether or not the venue is accessible for him or her. This approach also has some drawbacks, for example if a disabled person is unable to access the information, or if a third party (e.g. travel agent) is searching for a venue on behalf of an older or diosabled traveller. Also, from the legislative point of view, the ‘descriptive approach’ does not distinguish those access problems that could possibly result in a fine for the owner, from those which are ‘awkward for the user but still legal’. This lack of a legal reference reduces, possibly, the incentive for owners or managers to improve their premises for disabled users.

Of course, both approaches: certification and objective information can exist within one scheme.

In conclusion, it is clear that, to create a pan-European accessible tourism information service, the OSSATE service (to be branded as 'EuropeforAll.com') should seek to incorporate the best features of several existing schemes, while ensuring that users are able to define the amount and type of information that they prefer, as far as possible.

'EuropeforAll.com' should also seek to provide a collaborative platform for existing schemes, whereby accessibility data can be shared across regional and national borders, adding value to these services and extending the availability of their information services to other languages and user communities.

In order to enable the commercial roll-out of 'EuropeforAll.com', the OSSATE partners will specify a set of general conditions and requirements for third party providers of on-line accessibility information to join the scheme.