An accessible smart city determines whether a city\u2019s digitalisation fosters inclusion \u2013 or erects new barriers. After all, every ticket machine, every citizen app and every digital display board can either open up or deny access to the city for people with disabilities. Around three in four Europeans live in cities, and one in four adults has a disability. In this guide, I\u2019ll draw on practical audit experience to show you which digital areas a city must make accessible, which legal obligations \u2013 from self-service terminals and the EN 301 549 standard to the BITV \u2013 actually apply, and how pioneering cities are already putting this into practice today. Finally, I\u2019ll reveal the one step that almost every city overlooks. <\/p>\n\n
An accessible smart city is a city whose digital services can be used by everyone without the need for assistance. A smart city manages its day-to-day operations using technology: via apps, sensors, self-service terminals and digital displays. It only becomes accessible when each of these elements also works for people with visual, hearing, motor or perceptual impairments. <\/p>\n\n
The urgency stems from demographic trends. Around 75 per cent of Europeans live in towns and cities, and more than a fifth of the EU\u2019s population is over 65. Furthermore, there are around 87 million people with disabilities living in Europe. It is precisely these people who encounter technology at every turn in a digitalised city. <\/p>\n\n
This leads to a simple principle. A smart city must not only be efficient, but must also be inclusive. After all, what use is the fastest digital service if some citizens cannot use it at all? True \u2018smartness\u2019 is only evident when absolutely everyone is included. Technology is therefore a means, not an end. It should enable participation, not hinder it. <\/p>\n\n
The challenges facing a smart city can be categorised into four types. Each type affects a different group \u2013 and requires a different solution. <\/p>\n\n
Visual barriers affect blind and visually impaired people. They are hindered by touchscreens alone, by visual displays without audio, and by text that is too small. Auditory barriers affect deaf people, for example in the case of announcements without a visual counterpart. Motor barriers affect those who cannot reach or operate a device \u2013 height-adjustable terminals and large controls can help here. Cognitive barriers arise from complicated menus, technical jargon and time pressure. <\/p>\n\n
It is important that these barriers converge within the city. Older people have poorer eyesight, poorer hearing and, at the same time, move more slowly. That is why no single measure is sufficient. Rather, every digital platform must work for all four groups \u2013 and this is precisely what an in-depth audit such as Access Ready<\/a> tests using real users. Only this perspective on how these factors interact reveals where the city truly falls short in everyday life. <\/p>\n\n The digitalisation of a city can foster participation \u2013 or have the opposite effect. After all, a touchscreen kiosk with no voice output excludes blind people. A citizen app without screen reader support bars them from accessing the local authority offices. And a digital administrative process that only works online leaves behind those who are unable to use it. <\/p>\n\n The fundamental problem is a flaw in reasoning. Many towns and cities are replacing an analogue method with a digital one and doing away with the old one altogether. Anyone who cannot use the new method is then left with none at all. Digital as the standard is fine \u2013 but only as long as an accessible alternative remains in place. <\/p>\n\n That is why there is a clear rule. Never remove the accessible alternative when you digitise a service. As long as a digital service cannot be proven to be usable by everyone, a second, accessible option must be provided alongside it. Only when the digital solution truly reaches everyone can it replace the old method. In practical terms, this means: ensure that a staffed counter or telephone support is available as long as the digital option does not work for everyone. No one should miss out on dealing with the authorities simply because an app excludes them. <\/p>\n\n An accessible city helps far more people than just those with a permanent disability. This is because many limitations are temporary or situational. Anyone with an arm in a plaster cast, pushing a pushchair or pulling a suitcase benefits from the same solutions. Tourists who do not speak the language also find it easier to get about with clear symbols and simple language. <\/p>\n\n The prime example comes from the urban environment itself. The lowered kerb was originally built for wheelchair users. Today, everyone uses it: parents with pushchairs, travellers with wheeled suitcases, and cyclists. This very same \u2018curb cut\u2019 effect also applies in the digital world. Ultimately, a user-friendly app and a vending machine with voice guidance benefit everyone. <\/p>\n\n Added to this is the ageing population. More than a fifth of people in the EU are over 65, and this group is growing. Older people benefit directly from large font sizes, clear language and straightforward navigation. I explore the significance of this in more detail in my guide to accessible websites for senior citizens<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n Accessibility in the city is not a single task, but many. This is because a smart city comprises a wide variety of digital layers. Each of these has its own challenges and requires its own solution. The following overview outlines the key areas. <\/p>\n\nThe risk: when digitalisation erects new barriers<\/h2>\n\n
Who benefits from an accessible city<\/h2>\n\n
The areas in which a smart city must ensure accessibility<\/h2>\n\n