Digital Sovereignty not without digital Accessibility

This article discusses digital sovereignty and the importance of digital accessibility in this context. The sovereignty of the European Union is currently the subject of intense political debate, as a large portion of its software and hardware originates from countries with problematic political stances. The problem, in my view, is that digital accessibility in alternative solutions is addressed rarely.

Summary - TLDR

Digital sovereignty essentially means largely decoupling from foreign platforms to avoid dependencies. This topic is currently particularly relevant due to AI platforms: the most powerful providers so far are from the USA, while China is rapidly catching up. Europe is thus faced with the challenge of navigating difficult partners and developing its own solutions.

The obvious option of creating its own platforms is time-consuming but makes sense in the long run – however, that only make sense if these solutions offer comparable accessibility and a user-friendly experience (UX). To date, accessibility has received little attention in the discourse surrounding digital sovereignty. Arguments such as data security, reliability, and compliance with data protection and AI regulations (GDPR, AI Act) are clearly paramount, while digital accessibility and UX are often neglected.

A key problem lies in the lack of accessibility expertise within German and European development teams. While the US has established a clear framework for accessible software and procurement with laws like the American Disabilities Act and Section 508, comparable regulations exist only to a limited extent in the EU. This leads to the continued inadequate implementation of accessible workplaces and software in many companies. Outdated systems or in-house developments that haven't been updated in a long time exacerbate this problem.

Citizen services are also affected. Examples such as the German electronic patient record or the German electronic identity card demonstrate that a lack of accessibility, complicated operation, and insufficient information hinder their use. Citizens are often unsure or don't know how to use digital services correctly. This contributes to the slow progress of digitalization in Germany.

Furthermore, experience in public administration shows that older employees often struggle to use new software efficiently. Friction and low acceptance arise when new solutions, while functional, are designed differently from familiar systems like Microsoft Office. This underscores the need to consider UX and accessibility from the outset when developing digital platforms.

Solutions can only be successful if the user perspective is taken into account. Digital sovereignty must not mean abruptly replacing American platforms with mediocre local solutions. Instead, new systems must be developed in an accessible, user-friendly, and participatory manner – together with citizens and public administration staff. Open source offers particular opportunities in this regard: Europe-wide uniform standards can be created by having several countries work on implementation simultaneously.

US platforms are exemplary in many respects, but they also have shortcomings. Microsoft Office, for example, is bloated and can be made more efficient, intuitive, and accessible through sovereign European solutions. Europe thus has the opportunity to create its own platforms that are digitally sovereign, user-friendly, and accessible. This requires that accessibility and UX are and consistently placed on the agenda.

In conclusion: Digital sovereignty is not only a matter of data security and independence, but also of user-friendliness and accessibility. Without consistently considering accessibility and UX, digitalization in Germany will continue to progress only sluggishly. Investments in skilled professionals, participatory development, and open-source solutions are key building blocks for successful implementation.

The Problem of Digital Sovereignty

Until now, dependence on non-European platforms in the software sector has hardly been perceived as a problem. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that software can be used as leverage, for espionage, or for data theft. The dependence on a few large companies continues to grow. A handful of providers—most notably Microsoft and Google—now control a significant portion of the software landscape. They supply, for example, central software solutions for companies and operate important internet platforms. Cloud services, such as those from Amazon or Microsoft, form the technical basis of many applications. The failure of a major cloud provider can thus cripple parts of the internet and countless applications.

This potential power is increasingly being recognized as a problem. While this power has not yet been widely exploited, there is always the possibility that platforms will be misused as a means of political or economic influence. Many platforms can be used for spying or simply shut down, which further increases dependence on a few providers. While classic software such as Office or search engines were the focus in the past, AI platforms now dominate. Most major AI services originate from the US or China, while European alternatives have seen little use so far. This intensifies the discussion about digital sovereignty.

Digital sovereignty essentially means replacing global platforms with alternatives, such as open-source solutions or European offerings. There are good reasons not to become dependent on just a few providers, and alternatives do exist.

Lack of Accessibility in Alternatives

A key problem: Many of these alternatives only inadequately address accessibility. In contrast, US platforms often implement accessibility well—not out of pure altruism, but due to economic interests and legal requirements. The US has strict laws for accessibility in the public sector, and companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple benefit when their software is used in government agencies, education, or publicly funded projects. Therefore, they place great emphasis on accessible solutions.

European platforms, on the other hand, have hardly focused on this aspect so far. Many in-house developments intended as alternatives to Microsoft Office prioritize core functionality and rapid development over accessibility. The fast pace of development and the pursuit of extensive functionality often lead to accessibility being neglected.

Another major problem is the lack of accessibility expertise in German and European development studios. There is a lack of skills to develop accessible software. This lack of competence is becoming increasingly noticeable, especially compared to the USA, which is significantly more advanced in this area.

In the USA, strong legal requirements exist, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 508, which mandate accessibility in software procurement. While the EU has laws, these primarily address workplace software and only inadequately strengthen the rights of people with disabilities. As a result, accessible workplaces and software continue to be neglected in many companies.

In-house developments or outdated systems often cause problems because they haven't been updated in a long time and accessibility is a low priority. Although the German Disability Equality Act theoretically guarantees accessible workplaces, this is frequently ignored in practice. Software purchases are often based on the simplest solution—for example, Microsoft Office or Google Docs—without considering digital sovereignty or accessibility.

The issue of digital sovereignty has only gained importance in recent years, particularly since the Trump administration made it clear that software companies can be subject to political pressure. Such interventions can lead to data leaks or blocking and represent massive infringements on self-determination. In many cases, the platforms themselves are legally obligated to implement these orders, which further increases our dependence and vulnerability.

Functionality, not accessibility or UX

So far, the focus has been on replicating the functionality of US solutions. UX and accessibility are hardly mentioned. You might say that this is self-evident. From painful experience, I unfortunately have to disagree: If it isn't discussed and demanded, it will be ignored. I checked whether there was any information on the accessibility of common alternatives – nothing.

Common arguments for digital sovereignty are data security, reliability, and compliance with data protection and AI regulations (GDPR, AI Act). These aspects are valid and important. What has hardly been addressed so far is digital accessibility and user experience. There are significant shortcomings here, especially with German software.

UX is not trivial: The usability of Microsoft Office or Google services is often less than ideal, and the expectations of user experience or accessibility on these platforms don't necessarily align with one's own requirements. For European platforms, the following applies: As long as accessibility and good UX are not guaranteed, a central aspect of digital sovereignty remains unaddressed.

There is still considerable room for improvement that has received little attention so far: the quality of the software itself. Simply replacing software without involving users can cause significant problems. Especially in public administration, with its higher average employee age, switching to new software is often difficult. Friction arises, efficiency suffers – not to mention accessibility.

Introducing office alternatives, which are functional but look and operate differently than Microsoft Office, does not solve the problem. This phenomenon is evident not only within public administration but also in digital citizen services.

Examples from Germany include the electronic patient record and the electronic identity card. The patient record has been implemented nationwide but is hardly used because it is difficult to access. The electronic identity card theoretically offers functions such as digital identification for online services but is rarely used. Reasons include a lack of knowledge about its function, complicated handling, and unclear data protection regulations.

Alternatives fail without participation

Such weaknesses render digital services unattractive and inefficient. The government urgently needs to improve the usability and accessibility of its digital services so that citizens and employees are willing to use them.

The inadequate digitalization has far-reaching consequences. Germany is among the countries that rely heavily on cash payment, and many citizens still prefer traditional communication methods such as telephone or mail. Digital services are therefore adopted only hesitantly, which is also due to poor usability and insufficient accessibility.

Although the Online Access Act contains clear requirements for UX testing and accessibility, these requirements are not being consistently implemented. The existing digital services are often complicated, unintuitive, and do not meet the needs of users.

The government, in particular, has a responsibility to make digital services and its workplaces accessible to all citizens – including older people and people with disabilities. So far, however, it has only inadequately fulfilled this responsibility.

Conclusion: The EU can do better than the US

I am not opposed to digital sovereignty – on the contrary: much more should be done in this area, especially in the field of open source. The EU has capacities and skills that it should contribute more effectively. Crucially, however, the perspective of users – both government employees and citizens – must be incorporated into the development process.

Abruptly replacing American platforms with mediocre local applications is not a solution. Instead, digital services must be designed from the outset with usability and accessibility in mind. This requires massive investments in personnel and expertise: more specialists who can develop accessible software and web applications are urgently needed. An agile process is also necessary, in which applications are improved iteratively, for example, through user feedback.

The US platforms are exemplary primarily because the alternatives are significantly inferior. The EU can do considerably better here with user participation.

The solutions provided must be accessible, user-friendly, and developed collaboratively – together with citizens and public administration staff – before being widely rolled out. Open source offers particular opportunities in this regard: Europe-wide uniform standards can be created, as several countries can work on implementation simultaneously.

While US platforms are exemplary in many areas, they too have shortcomings. For example, Microsoft Office is bloated and could be improved, made more efficient, and more accessible through sovereign European solutions. A prerequisite for this is that the issue is even put on the agenda – currently, this remains one of the biggest obstacles. The European states should use the Chance and improve the Quality of their Software Solutions. Europe could become a leader in digital accessibility.

More on Social Factors for Accessibility

Digital Sovereignty not without digital Accessibility