W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2001

Fw: Building a business case for web accessibility

From: Laux <laux@mho.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:51:48 -0600
Message-ID: <00ea01c121ff$ece39740$9d2e9dd0@uswc.uswest.com>
To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
To: <sec508@trace.wisc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: Building a business case for web accessibility

> At 12:50 PM 8/9/2001 , Roades, Adam wrote:
> >As a contractor for the federal government, we have been discussing how
> >"metrics" are affected by section 508.  What we've found - mostly from
> >experience in designing/developing the 508 Universe and training for
> >is that our total costs increased 25% of the total project cost (compared
> >not considering accessibility issues).
> Or in other words, the conclusion was that if you do a less than
> thorough job, you can save 20%.
> I bring this up not to put down Adam -- in fact I thank him for these
> figures -- but to emphasize that for the most part this is not an
> "extra cost for accessibility" but rather the full cost of "doing it
> right."
> If I build a house correctly, it might cost $75,000.  If I leave out
> essential parts necessary for it to be a good house -- maybe the
> insulation, skim a little on the materials, use smaller doors, or
> whatever, I can cut that cost by 20%.  If someone requires me to not
> cut corners, they're not costing me an extra 25% -- I'm just not able
> to get away with doing a lesser quality job.
> That is how I approach the "extra cost of web accessibility" issue.
> Accessible web design has always been an integral part of -overall-
> web design; it's not an add-on, it's simply doing it right.  We always
> should have been developing with user diversity in mind; we always
> should have been testing on a wide variety of output devices; we
> always should have been enforcing rigorous QA and evaluation.
> It's actually a shame that it required a law to be passed in order to
> get many of us to stop taking short cuts, and just do a quality job.
> --Kynn
> PS:  Again, this is not a flame against Anteon or a criticism of anything
>       they have done; I have merely taken their figures and used it as
>       a starting point for the discussion.  I have no reason to believe
>       that Anteon's quality has been anything less than optimal in the
>       past; my statements reflect a judgment upon the web development
>       industry as a whole.
> --
> Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                http://kynn.com/
> Technical Developer Liaison, Reef             http://www.reef.com/
> Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://idyllmtn.com/
> Online Instructor, Accessible Web Design     http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 20:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:48 UTC