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

Re: Comments on "Web Accessibility is Smart Business"

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:21:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4E00E113.4010008@w3.org>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
  *To EOWG*: Note the changes below that particularly require your review and comment.

Thank you for the comments, Shadi. Replies below preceded with SLH:


On 6/10/2011 7:21 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Shawn, All,
>
> Looking really good, glad to see this work moving along!
>
> A couple of questions, and please excuse if it repeats any discussion I may have missed during the last week or two:
>
>
> # Slide 4 [wise investment in accessibility]:
>
> I've said this before but I still love it! ;)
>
>
> # Slide 13 [Reduces risk of legal action]:
>
> I'd prefer to find a way of making this slide more positive and less threatening, especially since it does not apply to all countries.
>
> I suggest changing the title of the slide to "other benefits" or such (as a follow-on from the previous slides), and mentioning some of the other benefits such as:
>  - "demonstrating corporate social responsibility"
>  - "complying with the UN Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)"
>  - "reducing the risk of legal action"

SLH: Per EOWG discussion on 10 June, changed the slide text to:
"Accessibility impacts image
- Public relations
- Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
- Reduces risk of legal action"
And added lots of text for speakers and self-learners/readers.

*To EOWG*: Please review this new slide, including the speaker's/reader's text.

SLH: I tried including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in this slide and also tried in a latter one, but it didn't seem quite strong enough for a short, general business case presentation. Let me know if you think otherwise, along with suggestions on what to say in the text and how to flow it with the other information.


> I also suggest not using a picture of someone who looks like a US congress person.

SLH: <fun>US?!? That face is clearly UK!</fun>


>
>
> # Slide 15 [Some basics]:
>
> I suggest expanding the first bullet point to reduce jargon. Say:
>  - "Provide alternative text for images, etc." or such

SLH: Done.
>
>
> # Slide 16 [example: alt text for images]:
>
> I wish we could use the Before and After Demo but it does not lend itself to this particular example ... yet. Let's discuss separately what possibilities there may be to combine the two.

SLH: OK, for later revision, please.

>
>
>
> # Slide 17 [example: images off]:
>
> The difference does not stand out clearly enough. Maybe the horizontal menu items should disappear too? Or even the list below too?

<SLH:>

Please check again. It seems very clear that the images disappear because the large banner and the large image disappear.

I think this should be a good example for design where all of the text is true text, not images (with the exception of the Buy Now button to make the point).

Let me know if I'm misunderstanding your suggestion or the issues or you have different perspective.

</SLH>

>
>
>
> # Slide 19 [example: mobile]:
>
> I think that a well-programmed mobile site should allow the "Buy now" button to render after (below) the list items...

SLH: Done.

>
>
> # Slide 24 [Investment]:
>
> I'm still concerned about the illustration/graphic but not sure what the recent discussions around these were.

SLH: The result from recent discussions was that that illustration does indeed represent a common trend for investment over time -- that we are comfortable with enough data and knowledge of the general trends for costs in many cases, albeit it lacks strong reference -- and that it is now sufficiently non-data looking. If you still disagree strongly to it being included, please make your case. It would be really nice to have specific suggestions for alternative images to help communicate the points that we want to get across. [Some upfront. Decreases over time. Much of the investment will be up front, such as training staff and potentially upgrading the tools you use to create and evaluate websites. Addressing accessibility will add some time to the development and testing process. As people get more experience, the additional development time required will go down.]

>
>
> # Sides 25-26 [Return from accessibility]:
>
> Why are we back to talk about return rather than answer the question "what does it cost?" (slide 23)? I think this entire section sounds a little too defensive.

SLH: Because the main point is ROI. Please suggest revisions to make it not sound defensive.

>
>
> In particular, I am concerned that we are only talking about monetary return rather than the broader benefits. For instance, "While it will cost some money to make your website accessible, it should make you more money than it will cost you" (slide 26) does not apply to many websites even though the benefits in return may still be significant.

<SLH>

Changed that sentence to " While it will cost some money to make your website accessible, the returns should far outweigh the costs."

The broader benefits are addressed earlier in the presentation. This section was to be on the monetary return.

Per EOWG discussion on 10 June, added a new slide after the monetary return:
hidden title: [broad benefits]
slide: images of people from earlier in the presentation
text:

The return on investment in accessibility is greater than just direct financial benefits to website owners.

Websites that more people can use effectively in more situations benefit everyone, owners and users alike.

Accessible websites benefit individuals and society by providing unprecedented access to information, interaction, and participation for people with disabilities.

Improved usability for everyone, better SEO, reaching more users (including an increasingly older user base), demonstrating social responsibility, ... -- all are broad benefits of web accessibility.


*To EOWG*: Please review this new slide. Note: Some of the specific phrasing ties in to other wording in the presentation, &/or in the business case pages.

</SLH>

>
>
>
> # Slide 28 [Transcripts for Audio]:
>
> "you can get good transcripts for less than $1.00 (USD) per minute" -- please add a reference to directly to:
>  - <http://www.uiaccess.com/transcripts/transcript_services.html>

SLH: It's in the previous slide, but I've added it here, too.

Thanks,
~Shawn


>
>
> Best,
>   Shadi
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 18:21:16 GMT

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