#Technology – Ideas in ALL

Accessible Products for All: Promoting Universal Accessibility in Product Design

Research Stream: Symposium

Author: Luke McKenna, Undergraduate Product Design Student, BSc in Product Design and Innovation, Department of Design Innovation, Maynooth University

I believe there is a very common misconception of what product design really is. It is not so much ‘designing a product’, but rather it is ‘identifying a problem’ and ‘providing a solution’, generally through means of design. This discipline has been around since the birth of mankind, from the first people shaping primitive tools and designing fish traps, to forging armour and eventually making bicycles. Although design techniques and manufacturing methods are the best and most efficient they have ever been, there is a vital problem which has not yet been solved – establishing universal accessibility as a compulsory principle of modern product design.

The current prevailing ethos in the design and manufacturing world is still predominantly hostile to the core ideas of universal accessibility. Able-bodied, economically active and generally younger users are primarily considered when designing and manufacturing most modern products such as digital technologies, wearable devices, entertainment systems and so forth. Many private sector companies are reluctant to adopt additional accessibility specifications that they believe will increase the costs of product design, development, testing and manufacturing.

These profit-driven ideologies have not only obstructed the progression of universal accessibility in product design, but have also potentially withheld greater success from the companies themselves – Wouldn’t a company who designs and manufactures universally accessible products have potential to be incredibly successful?

Universally designed products receive increased use and enjoy greater levels of user satisfaction due to their accessible and simplistic nature, future-proof design, and broader appeal. With this in mind, why then would universally designed products be an off-putting concept for manufacturers?

Ronald Lawrence Mace (1942 – 1998) was an American product designer, architect, educator and consultant who coined the term ‘Universal Design’ (UD).

Mace defined it by saying, “Universal design is design that is usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.” After contracting polio as a child, Mace became a lifelong wheelchair user. As a person with a disability, Mace used his passion for architecture and product design alongside his tireless advocacy to push for legislative change in his native North Carolina, USA, and establish the first legal standards for accessible buildings and houses. He established the Center for Universal Design (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Center’), at the School of Design at North Carolina State University where we worked as a research professor.

The Center was said to be “a leading national and international resource for research and information on universal design in housing, products, and the built environment.”

As of now, the Center is not currently active due to lack of federal funding – this, unfortunately, is evidence of persistent disregard of UD in modern times.

Mace’s hard work and advocacy on UD eventually contributed to an international definition of the concept being enshrined within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Convention), Article 2 on ‘Definitions’: “Universal design” means the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. “Universal design” shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed.

The European Commission’s Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021 – 2030 advocates “mainstreaming the Universal Design approach for better accessibility and provision of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities into all actions.” This builds upon the Commission’s emphasis on promoting the ‘Design for All’ (DFA) approach to product design so that manufacturers will “design, develop and provide products, goods and services so that they can be accessed, understood and used by the widest range of users, including persons with disabilities”.

To make enabling and accessible products, it is a designer’s duty to alter traditional approaches to design methods that are disabling for older people and persons with disabilities. With a UD and DFA-oriented design process, not only would new production lines and systems be invented, but products already manufactured at scale would have necessary solutions applied to them, saving manufacturers from entirely new production requirements, and therefore costs.

There is no denying that this throws up some practical challenges for product designers.

However, with extensive research in service design, modern technologies, 3D CAD software, AI and a holistic DFA ethos, it is not only practical, but economical to provide a globalised society with a ubiquitous and comprehensive standard of UD for accessible products, devices, and services.

Abiding by UD also ‘future-proofs’ products and services as they can be designed to accommodate diversifying populations (ageing, disability and multicultural groups), evolving regulations (accessibility laws and guidelines), sustainability (adaptable, long-lasting materials and robust designs) and lifelong usability of products for people irrespective of their age and ability.

By generating the necessary political will and social advocacy, like Ronald Lawrence Mace, it is possible to develop new policies and legal standards for UD and DFA measures in product designs and related services, and set new high quality universal accessibility standards for the manufacturing industry at large.

At the start, I said that the purpose of a product designer is to identify a problem and provide a solution. The problem has been identified; it is now time for us to solve it. Striving for inclusivity, accessibility, usability, and for the good of all. The time for change in design has come. The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.

Luke McKenna smiling with curly hair and wearing a black hoodie — Luke McKenna

The European Accessibility Act and the EU ‘Marrakesh Package’: Will We Still Need the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation in June 2025?*

Research Stream: Social Structures

Author: Delia Ferri, Principal Investigator, Protecting the Right to Culture of Persons with Disabilities and Enhancing Cultural Diversity in EU Law: Exploring New Paths (DANCING)

The adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (Marrakesh Treaty) by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on 27 June 2013 has been heralded as historic and groundbreaking by scholars, policy makers and disability activists alike. In fact, the Marrakesh Treaty is the first treaty entirely based on exceptions to copyright, and the first WIPO treaty to address the rights of persons with print disabilities to access cultural material.

In a nutshell, the Marrakesh Treaty requires Parties to enact a copyright exception in their national legislation to facilitate the availability of works in accessible format copies for the benefit of blind persons, visually impaired people, persons with a perceptual or reading disability and those who are ‘otherwise unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading; that cannot access effectively printed material’. Enthusiasm has also surrounded the EU ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty and the ensuing adoption of the so-called ‘Marrakesh Package’, which is comprised of Directive (EU) 2017/1564 and of Regulation (EU) 2017/1563. However, approximately seven years after the adoption of the Marrakesh package, its usefulness and timeliness has been called into question. Alongside its inherent limitations, already commented upon in previous articles, the coming to effect (in June 2025) of accessibility requirements provided for in the Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services, better known as European Accessibility Act (EAA), has raised doubts as to whether the Marrakesh Package has still a role to play in supporting access to printed material for persons with disabilities. This blog post briefly highlights, on foot of previous research and qualitative interviews conducted within the remit of the project DANCING, funded by the European Research Council, why the EAA and the Marrakesh Package need to be seen as complementary, and pieces of what I have elsewhere called the ‘accessibility jigsaw’.

Professor Delia Ferri smiling and wearing black

The ‘Marrakesh Package’ in a Nutshell

The Marrakesh Directive, widely commented upon by copyrights scholars, introduces a mandatory exception to the harmonised rights of authors, empowering beneficiaries (i.e. people who are blind, have a visual impairment, people that have a perceptual or reading disability and people who are otherwise unable, due to a physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move their eyes to the extent that would be required for reading) and authorised entities (AEs) to convert a printed work into an accessible format without prior authorisation of the copyright holder. In substance, the Marrakesh Directive allows, without prior authorization of the copyright holder, conversion of existing printed material (books, newspapers, magazines, sheet music, and related illustrations and any other kind of written works, regardless of the media in which they are made available) in accessible formats (e.g. the creation of an audiobook from a printed volume) and the reproduction of accessible format copies (making additional copies of books in Braille). The Regulation, which is complementary to the Directive, provides for a copyright exception allowing for the cross-border exchange between EU Member States and Non-EU Member States who are party to the Marrakesh Treaty of accessible format copies of certain works that are ordinarily protected by copyright.

The EAA and Accessibility of Printed Material

Without engaging in the technicalities of the EAA, which I have commented on generally in an article published in the European Law Review in 2020, for the purpose of this brief blog, it suffices to highlight that it provides for a wide obligation for publishers to address accessibility concerns ex ante and produce accessible e-books. In fact, it has been highlighted that, when it comes to ebooks ‘the EAA is very thorough’ as it ‘takes into account the whole value chain from book production to consumption’. Although the EAA was enacted in 2019 and should have been transposed by the Member States by 2022, accessibility obligations will come into effect from 28 June 2025.

The EAA and the Marrakesh Package

The imminent coming into effect of EAA accessibility obligations has prompted some publishers to suggest that, in fact, the Marrakesh Directive in particular has lost, at least partially, its relevance. The Fédération des Editeurs européens highlights that the EAA is “a game changer in terms of the commercial availability of accessible books” and the enhanced availability of commercially available accessible copies should prompt for a careful approach in terms of disability copyright exceptions which should be reflected in any revision. The Fédération des Editeurs européens suggests that AEs should be able to “focus even more on cooperation with stakeholders, to avoid duplication and conflict with the commercial exploitation” of works, and similar arguments are put forward by the French Publishers Association (SNE). However, as highlighted in the recent “Study to support the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/1564 and of Regulation (EU) 2017/1563, which implement into EU law the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled”, the EAA and the Marrakesh Package diverge in their material and personal scope and do not clash or overlap. The EAA in fact will improve availability of ‘born-accessible’ works. However, it will only cover one format, that of e-books, and only apply to works published in digital formats after the cut-off date of 28 June 2025. Notably, the EAA has also a different personal scope than the Marrakesh Package. While the EAA covers people with disabilities, meaning that ebooks will need to be accessible to all people with disabilities (not just people with print disabilities). Further, given that the EAA does not apply to micro-enterprises, it substantially exempts small publishing houses from its obligations.

The qualitative research conducted in the DANCING project from the perspective of organisation of persons with disabilities further highlights that the EAA, in spite of its importance to support access of people with disabilities to printed material, neither diminishes nor hampers the relevance of the Marrakesh exception to copyright, which needs to be applied consistently. In particular, qualitative data collected through 10 semi-structured interviews with umbrella disability organisations active at the EU level – designed, deployed and conducted between June 2023 and January 2024[1] – revealed the need to fully and consistently apply the Marrakesh copyright exception and confirmed the importance of the Marrakesh Treaty and of the EU legislation transposing it. A thematic analysis ‘a la’ Braun and Clarke, unveiled that persons with disabilities do see the Marrakesh package as ‘one of the key initiatives from the EU on access to culture for persons with disabilities’ (NGO/OPD_1). One participant further added:

we have heard from certain industry that since now we have the European Accessibility Act that maybe the Marrakesh Treaty is not needed and that is entirely not true… Because I mean even if the Accessibility Act cover ebooks, which are important for access to culture obviously and education, this doesn’t mean that the Marrakesh Treaty is not needed… [by contrast it is essential] to have accessible formats specifically designed for persons with disabilities such as braille, ebooks, DAISY, you know, easy to read books etc. So we see that some industry players are using the Accessibility Act to say, hey now the Marrakesh Treaty is not needed anymore. And that is obviously not true… (NGO/OPD_1)

Another interviewee suggested that

…the [Marrakesh Package] have had a very significant impact and not even fully felt yet …. and I know we have been working a lot with national organisation[s] for blind people… around access to increasing access to alternative formats and … with […] publishers around making books accessible in alternative formats so if you need a digital version that you can listen to with your text to speech that you can get that really easily and quickly. Which is, I think, such a transformation from the past (NGO/OPD_9)

This tallies with the consideration that digital publishing is still relatively underdeveloped and uneven across the EU. Thus, regardless of the different scope of the two acts, the Marrakesh package is also perceived as essential because of existing accessibility shortcomings in the publishing.As one interviewee suggested that ‘[n]ot all the industries are on top of things when it comes to accessibility…’ (NGO/OPD_6). Interviewees also confirmed, in line with previous research, that the Marrakesh Package has stimulated access to, and enhanced availability of, printed material in accessible formats. Such impact is destined to remain even after June 2025.

*This blog post is a short dissemination output of the project entitled ‘Protecting the Right to Culture of Persons with Disabilities and Enhancing Cultural Diversity through European Union Law: Exploring New Paths – DANCING’ which commenced in September 2020 (https://ercdancing.maynoothuniversity.ie/). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No 864182). It reflects only the author’s views and does not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the ERC. I am grateful to Dr. Ann Leahy and Ms Eva Krolla for their support in the data collection process and in carrying out the interviews. I also wish to acknowledge with thanks the contributions of interview participants.

[1] The project encompassed a wide set of interviews. This particular dataset comes from 10 interviews with representatives of umbrella non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working on disability issues at the EU level and organisations of people with disabilities (OPDs). For the purpose of this research, OPDs were identified according to the definition proffered by the CRPD Committee in its General Comment No. 7. The CRPD Committee ‘considers that organizations of persons with disabilities should be rooted, committed to and fully respect the principles and rights recognized in the Convention. Ethical approval was obtained by the relevant Maynooth Ethics Committee.

Achieving Interoperability in Digitalised Healthcare in the European Union

Research Stream: Social Technologies

Author: Matthew McKenna, PhD Researcher at Maynooth University’s Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Research Funded through the Science Foundation of Ireland (SFI) Centre for Research Training in Advanced Networks for Sustainable Societies (ADVANCE CRT)

In October 2021, MedTec Europe released a white paper in collaboration with the European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR) titled, ‘Interoperability Standards in Digital Health: A White Paper from the Medical Technology Industry’. It defines interoperability in digital healthcare as “the ability of different information systems, devices and applications (systems) to access, exchange, integrate and cooperatively use data in a coordinated manner, within and across organisational, regional and national boundaries, to provide timely and seamless portability of information and optimise the health of individuals and populations globally”. It also underscores the fundamental importance of interoperability, stating that, “Lack of interoperability is widely acknowledged to be a critical barrier for the adoption and deployment of digital health technologies and for the digital transformation of healthcare”. To this end, interoperability in digital healthcare represents an indispensable systems component and critical necessity for the provision of modern healthcare in the European Union (EU).

To date however, the digitalisation of healthcare in the EU has encountered a complex web of bureaucratic, social and legal challenges due to a fragmented digital health technology market and poor inter-agency cooperation resulting from insufficient interoperability between structures and stakeholders on a national and international level. This has greatly slowed the pace at which potential benefits of digital technology can be translated into tangible improvements in healthcare and quality of life for people in the EU. The European Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) has arguably been slow to take decisive measures to enhance cross-sectoral coordination by reforming regulatory frameworks governing digital healthcare technologies. As such, data sharing, procurement and administration of digital technologies in the care environment has been governed by customary national laws of individual EU member states. Discordant legal rules and standards across the EU limit the ability of businesses developing and marketing digital health technologies such as robots and connected devices and services to operate effectively in the single market. Deficits of strategic cross-sectoral interoperability in the digitalisation of healthcare infrastructure and a lack of interagency communication and cooperation has discernibly contributed to the longevity of traditional, non-digital and wardship models of care provision, particularly for vulnerable individuals including older people and persons with disabilities.

Perhaps understandably, the Commission has approached the emergence of digital health technologies with a significant degree of apparent caution. In the absence of measures to promote wide-scale uniformity in procurement and implementation processes for connected devices and services in the care environment, the cohesive integration of these modern capabilities represents a slow and costly challenge for a siloed and fragmented European healthcare sector. In its approach to digital health technology, the Commission has assumed an unhurried and deliberate process of supporting research initiatives funded through programmes such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The logical reasoning here is to assess, trial and identify examples of best practice in digitalisation within the care sector through the professional utility and implementation of digital technologies by clinicians and care workers. In this way, a trial-and-error process through practice and research can be established, with the experiences of the carer playing an important role in determining the practical challenges of ensuring effective implementation of digital health technologies in the care environment.

The digital healthcare technology industry in the EU is splintered and disorganised, even within the context of the single market. The following Commission Communication document from April 2018 titled ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Enabling the Digital Transformation of Health and Care in the Digital Single Market; Empowering Citizens and Building a Healthier Society’, announced the following strategic initiatives:

“To date, the uptake of digital solutions for health and care remains slow and varies greatly across Member States and regions. Further action at EU level is crucial to accelerate the meaningful use of digital solutions in public health and healthcare in Europe. In its mid-term review on the implementation of the Digital Single Market (DSM) 2014 – 2019 strategy the Commission set out its intention to take further action in three areas:

citizens’ secure access to their health data, including across borders, enabling citizens to access their health data across the EU;
personalised medicine through shared European data infrastructure, allowing researchers and other professionals to pool resources (data, expertise, computing processing and storage capacities) across the EU;
citizen empowerment with digital tools for user feedback and person-centred care using digital tools to empower people to look after their health, stimulate prevention and enable feedback and interaction between users and healthcare providers” (European Commission, 2018).

To this end, in 2022, the Commission put forward a proposal for a regulatory framework for the sharing of health data within the EU called the ‘European Health Data Space’ (EHDS) (European Union, 2022). According to the Commission, it will function as “a common EU data space for health data that empowers individuals and fosters a single market for electronic health records”. Further to this, “in 2024, the European Parliament and Council reached a political agreement on the Commission Proposal for the EHDS”. The EHDS is an important pillar in the construction of the European Health Union which aims to create a more unified, harmonised and effective healthcare system throughout the EU and to ensure the availability of medical supplies. These measures also address significant aspects of the three areas outlined above in the 2018 Commission Communication on the Digital Transformation of Health and Care.

In April 2024, the Interoperable Europe Act entered into force in the EU, representing an important step towards the harmonisation of “key” public services as part of the broader Digital Decade strategy. However, extending broader strategic digital interoperability across healthcare systems in the EU arguably requires dedicated and sector-specific legislative overhaul. Interoperable digitalised systems that empower caregiver engagement with stakeholders in policymaking and identification of good practice is necessary to facilitate smooth delivery of high standards in modern care. Digitalised interoperable healthcare systems with seamless transmission of patient health data, alongside appropriately scalable, cost-effective and rapid procurement mechanisms in the implementation of digital technology for effective service provision can maximise the efficiency and expertise of an invaluable care workforce.

Although certain long-anticipated initiatives are underway to harmonise digital healthcare systems in the EU through enhanced interoperability and an easing of some inhibitory regulatory barriers to the smooth functioning of health technology companies in the single market, change is happening at an often-lethargic pace. Unfortunately, this puts an unwelcome delay on the latent potential benefits that could be felt by carers and patients at an individual level given the current state of digitalised technological innovation. Furthermore, carers note that interoperability and scalability challenges often become apparent when trialling digital technologies in the care environment. As such, the involvement of healthcare workers in the creation of policy and best practice for the interoperable digitalisation of the care environment is critically important. Caregiver engagement mechanisms in Commission policymaking and communication with industry represent essential components in the development of digital interoperability frameworks that function smoothly and effectively, delivering versatile person-centred digitalised healthcare at an EU-wide level.

At Their Fingertips: The First International Day of Intangible Cultural Heritage

Research Stream: Social Lives

Author: Eva Sophie Krolla, Research Assistant, Protecting the Right to Culture of Persons with Disabilities and Enhancing Cultural Diversity in EU Law: Exploring New Paths (DANCING)

On 17^th October 2003, exactly 21 years ago, the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter: the 2003 Convention). The 2003 Convention represents a milestone in recognising immaterial cultural heritage and complements UNESCO’s efforts under the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 with its well-known World Heritage List. In honour of this, the General Conference of UNESCO declared 17 October the ‘International Day of Intangible Cultural Heritage’ at its 20^th anniversary in 2023, which will be celebrated for the first time this year. To date, 183 States Parties have acceded to the 2003 Convention including all 27 European Union (EU) Member States, with Malta being the last one to ratify it in 2017.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: