W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Call for Review: Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization - update

From: Andrew Arch <andrew@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:54:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4A1524EC.701@w3.org>
To: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hello Yeliz,

Thanks you for the all the comments and suggestions. The mobile device 
ones will be considered in the next revision of this document; others 
were useful for this version.

Andrew

Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
> Please see my comments below for these pages. They are all OPTIONAL.
> 
> On 4 May 2009, at 18:04, Shawn Henry wrote:
> 
>>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/Overview.html
> 
> 1. In this paragraph "While accessibility focuses on people with 
> disabilities, accessibility also benefits older users, mobile phone 
> users and other individuals, as well as organizations that develop 
> accessible products. Older users with age-related accessibility needs 
> are an increasingly important customer base for most organizations as 
> the percentage of older users is significantly increasing. Organizations 
> with accessible Web sites can also benefit from search engine 
> optimization, increased customer loyalty, demonstration of corporate 
> social responsibility, and reduced legal risk.". I think the second half 
> of the first sentence does not add much to the overall message of that 
> sentence ("as well as organisations..."), instead I would recommend to 
> talk about the benefits of accessibility for people with low literacy, 
> people with low bandwidth connections, etc.
 >
> In this parag., we can also add a sentence about the benefits of 
> accessibility for all, for instance the Mobile Web or when temporary 
> disabilities are experienced.

Thanks - good suggestions. I will consider changing.

> 2. In the following sentence "In order to be willing to invest the 
> initial costs, many organizations need to understand the social, 
> technical, and financial benefits of Web accessibility and the 
> expectations of the returns throughout the organization.", it would be 
> good to add legal factors as well so the sentence would read "In order 
> to be willing to invest the initial costs, many organizations need to 
> understand the social, technical, financial and legal factors of Web 
> accessibility and the expectations of the returns throughout the 
> organization."

Thanks, but not adopted as we lose the key word "benefits" that might 
attract readers.

> 3. The section "How to use this document" introduces the five pages that 
> form this resource suite but it doesn't present what these pages are. I 
> think it would be good to list those five pages here, at least mention 
> what they are. I know they are explained in detail in the following 
> section, but here it is not clear what these pages are.

Good idea - done.

> 4. In the section "Factors in a Business Case for Web Accessibility", 
> under social factors, we can also talk about the benefits of 
> accessibility for the Mobile Web.
> 
> 5. In the section "Examples of How Factors Differ Across Environments", 
> under "government ministry or agency", we can also talk about the 
> cost-savings in in-person or paper-based services when people are able 
> to use their services from their mobile devices.
> 
> 6.  In the section "Examples of How Factors Differ Across Environments", 
> under "educational institution", we can also talk about the benefits of 
> accessible Web for mobile Web based learning.
> 
> 7.  In the section "Examples of How Factors Differ Across Environments", 
> under "SME", we can also talk about the benefits of accessibility for 
> being able to support Mobile commerce.
> 
> 8. I think in the related resources section, it would be good to 
> re-order the listed resources so that "WAI Resources" is the first item.
> 
>>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc.html
> 
> 1. In the first parag, I guess the last link label has to be "Developing 
> a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization: Overview". This 
> comment is valid for all the other sub-pages.

Changing this would interrupt the reading flow; also, the link text 
reflects the name of the suite and links to the overview page which is 
sufficient.

> 2. In the section "Identifying Social Factors for a Specific 
> Organisation", in the last question, we can also give "Mobile Web" as an 
> example.
> 
> 3. In the section "Number of people affected", we can also briefly talk 
> about the number of mobile Web users. I think it is not a good idea to 
> give a number as it changes everyday, but we can briefly mention that 
> there quite a lot of mobile Web users who can benefit from accessible 
> Web sites.
> 
> 4. In the Section "Overlap with Digital Divide Issues", we can also 
> briefly mention the work by the "Mobile Web for Social Development, 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/" working group. How developing countries 
> could possibly benefit from accessible Web? I know that the following 
> sections briefly mentions people that use older technologies, etc., but 
> it might be good to explicitly talk about that work here.
> 
> 5. In the section "Web Accessibility Benefits People with and Without 
> Disabilities", we can also add a subsection that introduces the overlaps 
> between mobile and accessible Webs.
> 
> 6. I am not sure if it is a good idea to refer to specific checkpoints 
> or success criteria in each subsection of the section  "Web 
> Accessibility Benefits People with and Without Disabilities". Do we 
> assume that people who will read these pages will have technical 
> knowledge of these guidelines? Wouldn't it be better to briefly 
> introduce the overlaps and then refer to the other documents that give 
> the technical overlaps?.

We have a wish-list item to allow people to reveal/hide these which 
would address your point. Leaving for another revision.

>>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/tech.html
> 
> 1. Similar to my previous comment, do we assume that people who will 
> read these documents, will have technical knowledge of the guidelines? 
> If that's the assumption, please ignore my comment, but if that's not 
> the assumption, I wonder if it is a good idea to refer to WCAG 2.0 
> success criteria and WCAG 1.0 checkpoints. These references are also not 
> linked to the relevant technical document, so if one wants to read more 
> information about them, then they have to go and manually find them.
> 
>>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/fin.html
> 
> 1. In the section "Increased Web Site Use",  in this sentence 
> "Accessible sites can be used by more people -- including people with 
> disabilities, older people, people with low literacy, people who are not 
> fluent in the language of the site, people with low bandwidth 
> connections to the Internet, people with older technologies, and new and 
> infrequent Web users, as discussed in Social Factors -- thus increasing 
> the market segments and number of people who can successfully use the 
> site.", we can also talk about the Mobile Web users.
> 
> 2. In the section "Increased Web Site Use", in the part "Increases 
> potential use in more situations", we can extend this and talk about the 
> temporary disabilities that people can experience (e.g., low bandwidth, 
> connection charges, device limitations (no mouse, etc)).

Thanks for this idea - incorporated

> SOME EXRA COMMENTS:
> 1. I realised that in some pages of the suite you question if you have 
> enough evidence. Regarding the evidence for each of these factors, what 
> about referring to studies like this:
> <http://inova.snv.jussieu.fr/evenements/colloques/servonline/Actes/description_ang.php?id=49&num=45> 

Thanks - adding these kind of studies is something to consider for 
another revision.
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 09:55:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:55 GMT