Expert evaluation of e-safety measures on Ketnet.be

Expert evaluation of e-safety measures
on Ketnet.be based on the Safer Social
Network Principles for the EU
September 2013
Auteurs
Dr. Verónica Donoso and Dr. Eva Lievens
Onderzoeksgroep en universiteit
ICRI, K.U.Leuven-iMinds
ISBN
XXXX
EMSOC
User Empowerment in a Social Media Culture
T + 32 (0)2 629 16 14
E [email protected]
W www.emsoc.be
Twitter #emsocnews
Powered by IWT
Abstract
This paper reports the results of the expert evaluation of the Ketnet.be website. Ketnet.be is a VRT -­‐owned website for children up to the age of 12. The evaluation was based on the methodology employed during the second assessment of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU and had a specific focus on the e-­‐safety measures implemented on the website. On the website, which is built around the content and programmes created by Ketnet, all children (registered or non-­‐registered users) can perform a wide range of interactive activities such as watching videos, re-­‐playing programmes originally broadcasted on TV, playing online games and doing quizzes. Children can also choose to become members of the Ketnet online community. In general, Ketnet.be provides effective and user-­‐friendly e-­‐safety features on their website ranging from specific e-­‐safety information available in different formats (quizzes, videos, etc.) to strong privacy settings and easy-­‐to-­‐use mechanisms to report inappropriate content. The age-­‐appropriateness as well as the user-­‐friendliness of the available e-­‐safety content and features of the website is also discussed in this report. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 3 Table of contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 2 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 6 3 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 9 4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 18 5 Future work .......................................................................................................................... 19 6 References ............................................................................................................................. 20 ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 4 1
Introduction
This paper reports the results of the expert evaluation of the Ketnet.be website. The evaluation was based on the methodology employed during the second assessment of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU1 and had a specific focus on the e-­‐
safety measures implemented on the website. Ketnet.be is a VRT2-­‐owned website for children up to the age of 12 years old. On the website there is a full section called Kaatje dedicated exclusively to preschoolers. Statistics show that 11% of the Ketnet community are children aged 4-­‐53. A big majority of the members of the Ketnet community are girls (68%) as opposed to only 32% boys4. Because the target group of the website are Flemish children the website is only available in Dutch. In April 2012 the Ketnet community had approximately 61,000 members with a profile5. On the website, which is built around the content and programmes created by Ketnet, all children (registered or non-­‐registered users) can perform a wide range of interactive activities such as watching videos, re-­‐playing programmes originally broadcasted on TV, playing online games and doing quizzes. Children can also choose to become members of the Ketnet online community. In order to do it children must create a Ketprofiel. There are two types of profiles children can choose from: a basic Ketprofiel or a King Size Ketprofiel. Both profiles offer children the opportunity to become a fan of something or someone; to like something, to upload pictures and videos, to modify their personal profile and to add comments to videos, etc. In addition, children with a King Size profile will also be able to add friends to their profile, to share messages with them, to see their friend`s pictures and videos and to share high scores with them. By default, the wrappers6 are automatically added as friends and it is not possible for children to “unfriend” them. Although no minimum age requirement applies to register on the site, parental consent is needed in order to create a King Size Ketnet profile. 1 Donoso, V. (2011). Results of the Assessment of the Implementation of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU. Individual Reports of Testing of 14 Social Networking Sites. European Commission, Safer Internet Programme, Luxembourg. 2 VRT is the Flemish Radio and Television broadcasting organization. 3 This does not necessarily mean that this age cohort is an active group on the site. It is possible, though, that they, or most likely their parents, have created an online profile on the website so that their children can participate in contests sponsored by Ketnet TV channel. 4 Source: Neuckens, F. (April, 2012). Nieuwe Ketnet.be (ppt presentation) 5 Source: Neuckens, F. (April, 2012). Nieuwe Ketnet.be (ppt presentation) 6 The wrappers are the six ketnet TV presenters. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 5 2
Method
The Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU (See Table 1) were developed in 2009 by the major online Social Networking Services (SNS) operating in Europe in consultation with the European Commission and a number of child welfare organizations. Their aim was to “provide good practice recommendations for the providers of social networking and other user interactive sites, to enhance the safety of children and young people using their services”7. SAFER SOCIAL NETWORKING PRINCIPLES FOR THE EU PRINCIP
LE 1 2 DEFINITION EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Raise awareness of safety and education messages and •
acceptable use policies to users, parents, teachers and careers in prominent, clear and age-­‐
appropriate manner •
Social Networks should “work towards ensuring that services •
are age-­‐appropriate for the intended audience •
•
3 Empower users through tools •
and technology Providers should create clear, targeted guidance and educational materials designed to give children and young people the tools, knowledge and skills to navigate their services safely Service providers should provide clear information about what constitutes inappropriate behaviour. This information should be easily accessible and include information about the consequences of breaching these terms Taking steps to identify and delete under-­‐age users from their services promoting the uptake of parental controls which allow parents to manage their children’s use of the service providing the means for content providers, partners or users to label, rate or age restrict content where appropriate Set private profiles for users below 18 to private by default •
Give users control over who can access their full profile •
Educate parents about available tools 7 Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU (2009) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-­‐agenda/sites/digital-­‐
agenda/files/sn_principles.pdf ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 6 4 Provide easy-­‐to-­‐use mechanisms to report conduct •
or content that violates the terms of service •
Providers should provide a mechanism for reporting inappropriate content, contact or behavior. These mechanisms should be easily accessible to users at all times and the procedure should be easily understandable and age-­‐appropriate Reports should be acknowledged and acted upon expeditiously 5 Respond to notifications of •
illegal content or conduct •
6 Enable and encourage users to employ a safe approach to •
personal information and privacy •
7 Assess the means for reviewing illegal or prohibited content/ •
conduct •
Upon receipt of notification of alleged illegal content or conduct providers should have effective processes in place to expeditiously review and remove offending content Service providers should have in place arrangements to share reports of illegal content or conduct with the relevant law enforcement bodies and/or hotlines Provide a range of privacy setting options with supporting information that encourages users to make informed decisions about the information they post online Users should be able to view their privacy status or settings at any given time Providers should assess their service to identify potential risks to children and young people Providers should determine appropriate procedures for reviewing reports of images, videos and text that may contain illegal and inappropriate/unacceptable/prohibited content and/or conduct (e.g. human and/or automated forms of moderation; filters to flag potentially illegal or prohibited content; user-­‐generated reports) Table 1: Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU The guidelines were adopted voluntarily by the major online social networks active in Europe, and signed on Safer Internet Day on February 10th 2009. The principles recommend a wide range of good practice approaches, allowing for the diversity and judgment of the social networks themselves in terms of their relevance and implementation. Within the context of the Principles, “Social Networking Services” are ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 7 defined as services that combine the following features ("Safer Social Networking Principles of the EU," 2009: 3): • A platform that promotes online social interaction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchange; • Functionality that lets users create personal profile pages that contain information of their own choosing, such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal pages on the service of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the service; • Mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, electronic mail, or instant messenger; and • Tools that allow users to search for other users according to the profile information they choose to make available to other users. The safer Social Networking Principles for the EU have been assessed twice: in 2009 and in 2010-­‐2011, respectively. The methodology employed for the expert evaluation of the ketnet.be website is based on the one employed during the 2nd Assessment of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU. The testing instrument consisted in an online questionnaire comprising 5 sections, one for each of the principles assessed (Principles 1,2,3,4 and 6). Because of ethical reasons Principles 5 and 7 could not be tested on the platform. Each section contains a set of questions (indicators) that evaluate the extent to which ketnet has addressed the Principles on its website. The methodology was based on the “mystery shopper” technique, where the expert researcher had to set up “fake” profiles in order to carry out the tests. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 8 3
Results
The following section summarizes the main findings by Principle and concrete recommendations on how to improve their implementation. Principle 1: Raise awareness of safety education messages and acceptable use policies to users, parents, teachers and carers in a prominent, clear and age-­‐
appropriate manner E-­‐safety tips In general, Ketnet.be provides clear, targeted guidance to children and parents on how to navigate their website safely. The website contains useful tips and information on how to surf and behave safely on the website. The information provided is relevant, concise, clear and is presented in various sections of the website (including the dedicated “Cool on the net” (“vet op het net”) section (See Figure 1) and the parents` section) making it relatively easy to find both for registered as well as non-­‐registered users. With the exception of the e-­‐safety tips under the heading “Terms of Use” which are somewhat hidden in the navigation structure and may be difficult to find, other e-­‐
safety information is placed in more accessible and “logical” places on the website. As regards the way the e-­‐safety information is displayed, this information is presented in a variety of formats including attractive video clips, the “Cool on the net” quiz and easy-­‐to-­‐understand written texts which complement each other. The website also provides links to external organizations and the national helpline which may offer children and their families further information and help in case they may be interested in the topic or in case of an e-­‐safety incident (e.g. clicksafe.be; saferinternet.be; veiligonline.be, Google family safety, etc.). ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 9 Figure 1 “Cool on the net” section (“vet op het net”) ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 10 Terms of Use and Privacy information The “Terms of Use” (Gebruiksvoorwaarden) and the “Privacy” information are placed at the bottom of each page, however they are not prominently placed on the website. Furthermore, the font employed is very small and some scrolling is required in order to find them. All these factors in combination may make children unaware of the existence of these sections. Placing this type of information at the bottom of pages might be a better option for adult users (e.g. parents) as this is the typical place where users would expect this type of information to appear. However, this may not necessarily be the best option in the case of younger children because they do not usually look for, let alone read, this type of information on the websites they visit. Moreover, too much scrolling, especially in the case of younger users, may also hinder the navigation flow considerably. As regards the Privacy-­‐related information, a summary of the most important aspects related to user`s privacy is placed on the section “about this website” (“over deze website”). The information here is presented in a more user-­‐friendly format and it is structured in a way that is easier to read (with captions, lively colours, images, etc.). Nevertheless, it is not easily accessible and it may be difficult for users to find. Another point of attention is the way the content is presented in these sections. On the one hand, even though the Terms of Use describe in a straightforward, easy-­‐to-­‐
understand language what is allowed on the site and what is not (e.g. “Do not pose naked in front of the webcam”) a long list of bullet points with no visuals at all is not exactly a preferred format for children. More problematic is the case of the privacy policy which is a very long text written in quite formal language and legal jargon which makes the text difficult for children to understand. It is, therefore, advisable that other more child-­‐friendly ways of presenting this information are explored both in terms of content as in terms of visualization. Furthermore, the “Terms of Use” section is divided into two subsections, namely “Tips” and the actual “Terms of Use”. However the “Tips” section does not really contain information on the community rules but rather recommendations on how to behave safely on the website (e.g. “Be careful when you use your webcam”). It would, therefore, be advisable to make a clear distinction between e-­‐safety tips and Terms of Use and place both types of information under different headings and on different places in the navigation structure. Another interesting safety feature concerns the recovery of passwords. If a user forgets their password parents are informed about it and are asked to follow a link so that they can provide a new password for their child. This e-­‐mail also reminds parents of their child`s user name on the website. According to Ketnet, even though this feature is useful, there are many children who, instead of recovering their password, opt for creating a new profile. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 11 Principle 2: Work towards ensuring that services are age-­‐appropriate for the intended audience The Ketnet.be website is clearly developed with the target group 6-­‐12 years-­‐old in mind as shown by the services and content provided on the website which are appropriate for this age-­‐group. During testing, no adult-­‐only content was found on the site. Moreover, no commercial content of any type was displayed. The functionalities, activities and content displayed seemed, therefore, adequate for the target group. However, due to the natural constraints of this type of testing, it was not possible to have access to existing User Generated Content (UGC) such as videos or photos uploaded by members of the community. On the one hand, this reflects strict safety measures in the sense that non-­‐registered users can only have access to professionally-­‐
produced content available on the site. On the other hand, registered users cannot have access to UGC posted by users other than their friends8. As regards the services offered on the website, explicit parental consent is needed in case children may wish to have a King Size profile, i.e. a profile that enjoys all the functionalities available on the website, and which allows users to add friends to their profile, to share messages with them, to see their friend`s pictures and videos and to share high scores with them (See figure 2). In order to create a basic Ketprofile children must provide their parent`s e-­‐mail address. An e-­‐mail is then sent to the parent informing them that their child has created a profile on the website and explaining them what the site is about and how it works. Without providing a parent`s e-­‐mail no profile can be created. This e-­‐mail also explains the differences between a basic Ketprofile and a King Size one and invites parents to activate a King Size profile for their child. The process of creating a King Size profile is straightforward and user-­‐
friendly. In order for parents to grant parental consent they must accept the Terms of Use governing the site However, there is no way of verifying if the child has provided the parent`s real e-­‐mail address and, thus, actual parental consent has been granted. This means, for example, that more tech savvy children might be able to create fake parents` e-­‐mail addresses which would allow them to circumvent the parental consent mechanism. 8 This safety feature makes it impossible for the reviewer to check what type of UGC is being uploaded to the website and to evaluate if such content is really safe and appropriate for children. Ketnet ensures, however, that UGC posted to their website undergoes strict post-­‐moderation and reviewing. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 12 Figure 2 Parental consent required to open an account Principle 3: Empower users through tools and technology Profiles cannot be searched via the internal nor external search engines such as Google and if you are not a registered user of the website it is impossible to have access to other users’ profiles. If you are a registered user you have the possibility to add friends under the condition that you know both their first and their last name which you must type in a search box. If your search matches any results you can send a friend request to the users found. Once the other party accepts your friend request you can start sharing information and you get access to your new friend’s profile. This profile may include the following information (depending on how complete this has been filled in by the user): Clipboard (Prikbord), about him/her (interests and fan of), pictures and videos uploaded by your friend and Checklist,9 a sort of wish list containing challenges 9 This feature is related to a specific programme shown on Ketnet in 2013: “De Checklist”, a list of 50 things you really need to have done before you are 12 (http://www.ketnet.be/doen/de-­‐checklist/wat-­‐is-­‐de-­‐checklist). ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 13 children would like to fulfil. Whenever they fulfil a challenge they can check it on this list so that other friends can see it. Principle 4: Provide easy-­‐to-­‐use mechanisms to report conduct or content that violates the Terms of Service As regards inappropriate content or contact, Ketnet provides different mechanisms for users to report it including contextual reporting available on different relevant places of the website (See Figure 3) and wherever users are confronted with non-­‐
professional, UGC. More traditional reporting tools such as sending an e-­‐mail to the webmaster or to Ketnet are also available, although they are not very easy to find on the website. The contextual reporting mechanism is straightforward and user-­‐friendly. Whenever a user is confronted with content posted by another friend, except the wrappers, (e.g. a message, a picture, a video), they have the possibility to either “like” it or “report” it. The reporting occurs in a few steps via a red exclamation mark icon placed under every piece of UGC and next to the “like” icon. By hovering over that icon users get to see a pop-­‐up message asking them if they wish to inform Ketnet that they have seen something inappropriate on the site. By clicking on the icon users get a mini report form which asks them why they would like to report that particular piece of content. They can choose from seven pre-­‐defined options (e.g. bullying, racism, contains personal information, etc.). Once the user chooses the reason why they wish to report the content they user can click on “send” report. However, and probably to the surprise of first-­‐time users, by clicking “send” not only is a report to Ketnet sent, but the content reported is automatically deleted from the website. At this point it is impossible for users to undo this action, thus, once the content is deleted it is no longer available on the website. When inappropriate content is reported through this mechanism users are not informed about what will happen with their complaint. Users lack, therefore, important feedback regarding how their complaint will be handled, how long it will take, etc. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 14 Figure 3 Contextual reporting mechanism One could argue that, although this type of reporting mechanism is very effective and safe, it still has some drawbacks. For example, excessive control is given to users with the consequent danger that the reporting tool may be (easily) abused. Concretely speaking, children may delete each other’s content without a sound reason for doing it. Children, however, are warned through videos and other places on the website that they should only delete UGC that is really “inappropriate” and not just something they “don`t like”. It may be difficult for little children to grasp this difference, though10. Besides, even the same piece of content can be considered in very different ways by different users. For instance, an older boy may consider a picture as funny while a 10 In conversations with ketnet, they clarify that in practice their reporting mechanism works quite well and that children really report abuse on the site (rather than content they do not like). They believe that appropariate reporting behaviour is encouraged by providing pop-­‐ups where users have to choose a reason for flagging ‘inappropriate’ content. This extra step would make children aware that the content to be reported should be really inappropriate and not just something they do not find appealing. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 15 younger girl may see it as nasty or offensive. Therefore, it is important that content is reviewed before being completely deleted from the website11. Another possible related drawback is the fact that in some serious cases such as a cyberbullying incident, it is important for users to be able to keep evidence. If the reported content is automatically deleted from the website the possibility of saving such evidence disappears, at least in the eyes of the user (i.e. at the level of the graphic user interface).12 Principle 5: Respond to notifications of illegal content or conduct Because of ethical reasons this principle could not be tested. Principle 6: Enable and encourage users to employ a safe approach to personal information and privacy No users` private information is automatically inserted into their public profiles (visible to friends) and, by default, strict and safe privacy settings are applied. Children can only be in contact with their friends and only a limited amount of social networking functionalities are available on the site which limits the potential risks to which children can be exposed. However, Ketnet users do not have the possibility to decide if particular pieces of content can be shared with specific friends. At the moment the only option available is sharing everything with every friend or not sharing at all. Therefore, whenever children upload content to their profile everything they post is automatically visible to all their friends. The safety features of the site are very strong in terms of sharing users’ personal information. User’s personal information can thus not be shared nor viewed by users beyond their accepted list of friends. Furthermore no identifiable personal information nor contact details (e.g. address, telephone number, e-­‐mail address, name of school, etc.) are asked or displayed on friend’s profiles while contact information such as e-­‐
mails or phone numbers cannot be shared nor placed on a users’ clipboard. As figure 4 shows, any attempts to do so, generates the automatic blocking of your message which is communicated to the user by a pop-­‐up with the message “Bericht geblokkerd” (“message blocked”). 11 Outside testing, Ketnet indicates that every piece of reported content is carefully reviewed (after moderation) and that content which has been “unfairly” reported is quickly placed back on the site. Ketnet also claims that situations like this only happen rarely and, therefore, the percentage of abuse is really small. 12 Ketnet clarified that all reported content is kept for a while and that users (or their parents) can always ask Ketnet to provide access to such content if duly justified. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 16 Figure 4 Message blocked when attempting to exchange contact information Finally, the website offers the possibility to stop being friends with someone, however this option may not be the most socially “desirable” one. Blocking/unblocking specific users may be a more subtle option which allows users to avoid being contacted by specific “friends” without necessarily having to permanently delete them from their contacts list. As opposed to blocking-­‐unblocking someone, if a friend is deleted from someone’s contacts list the user will be obliged to send a new friend request every time they would feel like connecting again. Considering the rapidity with which younger children have “fights” and “reconcile” with their friends offline, providing a temporarily blocking/unblocking function may be an option that better suits children’s actual social behaviour. Principle 7: Assess the means for reviewing illegal or prohibited content/conduct Because of ethical reasons this Principle cannot be tested. Because of ethical reasons this principle could not be tested. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 17 4
Discussion
e-­‐safety information and Terms of Use Ketnet.be provides a number of effective and user-­‐friendly e-­‐safety features on their website ranging from specific e-­‐safety information available in different formats (quizzes, videos, etc.) to easy-­‐to-­‐use mechanisms to report inappropriate content. The e-­‐safety information provided is relevant, concise and clear making it easy to find both for registered as well as non-­‐registered users. As regards the Terms of Use and Privacy policy, it is important to take into consideration that the Ketnet community is quite heterogeneous and that the needs of younger children (6-­‐8) can be quite different than those of older ones (9-­‐12). Thus, it may be worthwhile to explore different ways of presenting this information to these different age segments paying special attention to the child-­‐friendliness of both content and form. This could be achieved by, for instance, including attractive designs, audio-­‐
visuals, shortening chunks of texts, using bigger fonts, etc. that can help make the content clearer, but also more appealing to children of different ages. This same age-­‐differentiation principle could be applied to different sections of the website, including e-­‐safety information. Adding dedicated information for parents about the Terms and Conditions governing the site may be particularly interesting and relevant in the case of younger children who may use Ketnet under parental guidance. This information could be placed more prominently in the especially dedicated parents’ section, for instance under the rubric “About Ketnet” (“Over Ketnet”). Reporting mechanisms The contextual reporting mechanism available on the site makes the reporting mechanism straightforward and user-­‐friendly. However, as mentioned before, too much control in the hands of users may facilitate that the mechanism may be (easily) abused. As regards the reporting procedure it is important that users are clearly informed regarding the reporting procedure and that they are reassured that this procedure is “safe” for them. This can be achieved by (1) warning users that all reported content is instantly deleted from the site; (2) providing users with information such as that their complaint will be dealt with confidentially, that the reported user will not be informed about it, etc.; (3) users should also be informed regarding how their complaint will be handled and the time frame it will take Ketnet to take some action (e.g. delete content, warn users in breach, etc.). These simple extra steps will increase the transparency of the whole mechanism while providing users a sense of trust that will encourage them to report inappropriate or illegal content in a responsible way. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 18 Privacy settings By default, strict, safe privacy settings are applied. Children can only be in contact with their friends and only a limited amount of social networking functionalities are available on the site. This feature certainly limits the potential risks to which children can be exposed. However, it also limits the possibility for users to choose which content to share with whom. Even though strict default privacy settings are a safe, user-­‐friendly option, having no possibility to personalize one’s privacy settings at all may be too restricted particularly for the oldest Ketnet users who, due to their developmental age, may start having an active social life, developing friends’ groups and showing clear preferences for some “friends” above others. It would be relevant, thus, to provide them with the necessary tools that could allow them to replicate these offline social patterns in a safe and responsible way on the Ketnet platform. For the youngest ones strict private-­‐by-­‐default settings may, indeed, be the preferred option. 5
Future work
•
•
In the first half of 2014 tests and/or focus groups with children will be carried out in order to validate the assumptions and the recommendations from this expert review. Best practices will be extracted after triangulating the results from the expert evaluation and the actual tests/focus groups with children. ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 19 6
References
Donoso, V. (2011). Results of the Assessment of the Implementation of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU. Individual Reports of Testing of 14 Social Networking Sites. Neuckens, F. (April, 2012). Nieuwe Ketnet.be Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU (2009) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-­‐
agenda/sites/digital-­‐agenda/files/sn_principles.pdf ©EMSOC – IWT -­‐ Brussels Leuven Ghent -­‐ 2011 – Authors: 20