W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Updated again: "Web Accessibility is Smart Business" Presentation

From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 02:36:00 +0200
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-id: <92D6A346-EDAE-4858-A36F-FBA63BEE5792@accessibiliteweb.com>
THank Cliff,

Really happy to see it's already been discussed. I hated the idea of being the one throwing a monkey wrench into this ppt after all the hard work being put into it.

Can't say I fully agree with the blog post comments, but there are some solid arguments in there I know some of my clients would agree with.

/Denis




On 2011-04-09, at 2:26 AM, Cliff Tyllick wrote:

> Hi, Denis!
> 
> Not only are there some points in Robert's post that should be discussed, but we actually have discussed them — just this morning.
> 
> The slide that Sharron just distributed is one rough idea about the direction to take this argument. It's highly symbolic and, although I haven't opened her slide yet, I must say that the general idea holds a lot of promise. (Sharron, you apologized for the quality of your sketch, but trust me — your art couldn't be any worse than my own!)
> 
> In that case, we're specifically recognizing what we came up with ourselves — that there are no hard and fast numbers we can point to.
> 
> I have another thought on how we can approach this. It won't be hard numbers, but I think it, like Sharron's approach, will present the message in a way that is faithful to the general truth without getting bogged down in detail. More to come.
> 
> Cliff
> 
> From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>
> To: EOWG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
> Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 6:29:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Updated again: "Web Accessibility is Smart Business" Presentation
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I just found this blog post about the presentation we'Re working on and thought I should share it with you all: <http://yonaitis.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-goal-of-w3c-presentation-web.html>.
> 
> I think there are some points in there that definitely deserve to be discussed.
> 
> Still thinking about this so too early for me to decide whether I agree with him, but definitely worth considering.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> /Denis
> 
> 
> 
> On 2011-04-08, at 2:24 AM, Cecilia Farell wrote:
> 
>> Hi:
>> 
>> I just found an opinion piece on this very business case that I think nicely addresses both Karl's and Sharron's point of view:
>> 
>> http://www.it-director.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid=9258
>> 
>> Abrahams asks, which of the numbers can we say happened because the site is now more accessible to disabled people? Well, we really can't tell and, even if we could, the numbers would not make the case. But that's OK. He goes on to say:
>> 
>> -----------------------
>> The message [of the case study] is that thinking about, and designing for, accessibility is the best way to:
>> 
>> Improve the quality of code and thus reduce maintenance and improve performance.
>> Increase the search engine ranking and drive more visitors to the site.
>> Increase the usability, which ensures more visitors stay on the site and then convert to customers.
>> Improve the look and feel of a site for all, giving the users a pleasant experience and reducing complaints.
>> Provide a site that can be used for small format devices such as mobiles, PDAs and UMPCs.
>> These benefits should be attractive to any CEO, CIO or Marketing Director even if they are not convinced about, or do not understand, the importance of access for disabled people.
>> 
>> -----------------------
>> 
>> He concludes:
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> My conclusion is that advocates of accessibility, including myself, should spend less time and effort talking about the benefits to disabled people, however important we think this is. Instead we should talk about accessibility as a discipline that improves the usability and quality of solutions for all users; and thus improves return on investment and profitability.
>> 
>> If we talk in these terms we should get want we want with much less effort.
>> 
>> ------------------------------------
>> 
>> As an example, thinking about designing for accessibility makes us use ALT text, which we know does more than address the needs of the disabled. "Sell" the use of ALT text by presenting the bigger ROI picture and "get what you want" - a use of alternative text specifically for accessibility, in addition to its other more general uses.
>> 
>> Hope this of use. Thanks,
>> 
>> Cecilia
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 07/04/2011 7:19 PM, Sharron Rush wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Still, I believe it is absolutley a valid example because the designers explicitly chose to include accessibility as part of their redesign requirements. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At 06:06 PM 4/7/2011, Karl Groves wrote: 
>>>> Thanks for the reply, Sharron.  I'm glad to hear from you. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> > While there are admittedly other aspects of the 
>>>> > overall redesign, accessibility is definitely not 
>>>> > as trivial as the coat of paint you compare it 
>>>> > to.  The point is this:    As accessibility is 
>>>> > integrated into the development process, it has a 
>>>> > profound affect on how design decisions are made. 
>>>> > The improved results are so closely interrelated 
>>>> > that - well, you can not separate them, which is 
>>>> > what I think you said.  Would the outcomes have 
>>>> > been as great if the deliberate inclusion of 
>>>> > accessibility features NOT been made?  We don't 
>>>> > know.  Improved outcomes have been demonstrated 
>>>> > in other cases, but we have permission from Legal 
>>>> > and General which, I believe is why we rely on that one situation 
>>>> > so heavily. 
>>>> 
>>>> I kept the above paragraph because I didn't want to seem to be taking things too out of context.  You say: 
>>>> " Would the outcomes have been as great if the deliberate inclusion of accessibility features NOT been made?  We don't know." 
>>>> 
>>>> I think this sort of makes my point: we don’t know whether L&G's amazing results were specifically due to accessibility improvements.  In a presentation aimed at making that argument, any case studies included should be *just* about accessibility.  I feel that a more compelling business case would be one in which a list of accessibility problems were found, they were repaired, and they were shown to have a specific and directly attributable benefit. 
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately finding such a business case will be quite difficult. As you note, accessibility often is not (and should not be) its own separate effort. All teams involved in design & development need to integrate accessibility into the entire process in order to get a more accessible end product and so when it is done right it is more of a quality of work issue. Nevertheless I still feel that such "business case" would be as closely tied as possible to accessibility only. 
>>>> 
>>>> As you note in the remainder of your response, getting a client to consent to using them as a business case is a challenge.  I've been trying to get some business case-type data from some for a long time as well and it is difficult. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks. 
>>>> 
>>>> Karl L. Groves 
>>>> Director, Training 
>>>> Deque Systems, Inc. 
>>>> Phone:  443.517.9280 
>>>> E-mail:  karl.groves@deque.com 
>>>> 
>>>> Is a non-compliant website putting your organization at risk? Visit www.deque.com 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cecilia Farell
>> cecilia@ceciliafarell.ca
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 00:36:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:58 GMT