On the "Digital Accessibility" draft law in Ukraine

It has become a pattern that official accessibility initiatives are often launched in a raw and poorly developed state. Moreover, they frequently clash with the interests of other government bodies or business lobbies. This was certainly the case with the initiative by Dostupno.UA and other NGOs regarding the pedestrian crossing near the Universytet metro station in Kyiv. A sound initiative was blocked, while official representatives for accessibility remained silent.

The same applies to accessibility terminology, which often lacks any scientifically grounded justification for why specific terms were chosen. Philologists have resisted the terminology hastily cobbled together by activists who relied solely on their own assumptions. And this is not just about the awkward term "wheelchair" (krislo kolisne).

Now, to the substance of the "Digital Accessibility" draft law.

1. The draft law contains very vague wording. For instance, it completely lacks a requirement for compliance with the DSTU EN 301 549:2022 standard already adopted in Ukraine. In practice, there should be a national standard, so why is there no mention of the existing one?
2. The draft law fails to outline any real mechanisms for monitoring accessibility status or penalties for inaccessible websites.
3. The text of the draft law itself is purely declarative, and some of its provisions are frankly questionable.
   For example, Article 3 states: "The main principles of ensuring digital accessibility are: 1) universality for all persons and/or groups of persons regardless of their physical abilities, age, or level of digital literacy;...". However, a person who is digitally illiterate cannot use the Internet.
4. The term "disproportionate burden — an excessive burden placed on the subjects specified in paragraphs three through five of point 1 and point 2 of part one of article 4 of this Law while fulfilling digital accessibility requirements;" is clearly intended to provide an excuse for failing to meet digital accessibility requirements in practice. Instead of detailing how to implement digital accessibility, the legislators have kicked the can down the road regarding funding.

Conclusion: this draft law is very raw and poorly developed. It clearly lacks depth and suffers from a blatant shortage of resources for quality drafting.

Roman Borenko
Founder of "DigiPandus".