W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Disability statistics

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:36:07 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112171731410.6563-100000@smarty.smart.net>
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

it should be a "complete" package of reasons.  don't forget that for most
businesses it should be free for all intents and purposes. section 44 of
the USA tax code is a TAX CREDIT to small business and Section 190 is an
ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION for all businesses.

and all this can be rolled over from year to year

now in a cost benefit study, any benefit is a positive when the cost is 0

a can't lose option. the ONLY reason for lack of access is a social
problem

Bob


> At 7:04 AM -0500 12/16/01, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >More particularly, it is that the benefit of accessibility to
> >the bottom line is often simple to get and very good return on investment -
> >accountants might not know that, but will be interested in it if it can be
> >backed up.
> 
> If this were the case then accessibility would be the standard, not
> the exception.  The return on investment -- by which we typically
> mean "how much more money you make from selling to disabled people
> over the cost of retrofitting a site" -- is not "very good".  It
> can't be "backed up" because it's simply not true.  There are much
> better ways to spend your money to improve your bottom line than
> making a web site accessible to a tiny fraction of users.
> 
> Plus, the big danger here is that even if you could POSSIBLY prove
> that there are some audiences which there is a benefit -- even if
> the numbers were "well, okay, if we spend $12,000 this year we
> can get $20,000 extra in business from blind folks" -- then you
> are subjecting the whole process to the same kind of scrutiny.
> 
> What if it doesn't make good business sense to enable access by
> the cognitively disabled?  What if their market value is far less
> than the market value of highly educated, computer-using, white
> blind people?  Do you only target the latter audience and ignore
> the cognitively disabled one?  What if your market research shows
> you that the cost of valid HTML isn't worth it, but the cost of
> ALT text is?
> 
> Do we really want to reduce accessibility compliance to a simple
> business transaction?  I hope not -- but that's what the business
> model rationale does.  It makes an unsupportable claim -- "you
> will make more money if you take accessibility into consideration!"
> -- and it certifies the notion that accessibility should be based
> on whether or not it's financially lucrative to pursue certain
> audiences.
> 
> I think the better argument is the "it's right" one.  People who
> are blind, people who are cognitively disabled, people who are
> deaf, people who are unable to use a keyboard or a mouse -- those
> people deserve access to my content for the same reason anyone
> else does, not just because I am hoping they have a wad of
> cash and I can get to that untapped market.
> 
> --Kynn
> 
> 

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachements are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privledged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 17:18:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT