W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > April 2004

RE: business case

From: Shawn Lawton Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:45:12 -0500
To: "'Blossom Michaeloff'" <bmichaeloff@mindspring.com>
Cc: "wai eo editors" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c4218f$d920ec70$418d7544@SLHenry>
Blossom,
 
Thank you for your review and comments on the business case. My replies
to your comments are below surrounded by brackets []. Let me know if you
want to discuss any of them.
 
Regards,
 
~ Shawn
 
 
 
[I tried plugging in your rewrite and felt it was confusing to introduce
a new topic with "Although there is [new topic], [it's not a big deal]."
I think it is OK to acknowledge that Web accessibility costs money up
front - that is the main reason why a business case is needed.]
 
I haven't had time to read thoroughly, but one thing I did notice is
that I feel the second paragraph of the intro focuses a bit too much on
the initial costs. The following rewrite de-emphasizes this a bit:
________________________
 
Although there is an initial cost for organizations implementing Web
accessibility, the initial costs are often offset by full a return on
investment through direct and indirect benefits. However, to be willing
to accept the initial costs, many organizations may need to understand
the benefits of Web accessibility and the expectations of the returns. 
 
The justification to commit resources to a project is called a "business
case". Business cases usually document an analysis of the value of the
project in meeting the organization's objectives, the cost-benefit
analysis, and expected outcomes.
________________________
 
[hummm. I agree with your point somewhat; however, I think in the
rewrite the second paragraph is missing context. It seems out of place
with no clear purpose. As it is now in the docs, the first paragraph is
a very simple intro to help new readers understand how this page fits
with others. The second paragraph gives examples of the "problem" and
the last sentence says how this document helps fix it.]
 
Also, in the Intros to each of the Factors, the ideas are jumbled in the
two paragraphs. You begin with info about "This page," switch to info
about the Factor covered, and in the final sentence in the second
paragraph revert to "This page...." - i.e., two separate ideas in the
second paragraph. I would rewrite as (for example, Social Factors):
________________________
 
This page describes social factors relating to Web accessibility,
provides questions to help focus how social factors are covered in a
business case for a specific organization, and gives examples of how
social factors can be addressed in a customized case for Web
accessibility. It is part of a resource suite that also describes
technical, financial, and legal and policy factors to consider in
presenting a case for Web accessibility. 
 
The importance of social factors apply differently to specific
organizations and situations. For example, one organization's goal might
be to become a leader in corporate social responsibility (CSR); a
different organization might be particularly interested in attracting
capital from socially responsible investing (SRI) sources; and another
organization might be interested in demonstrating its focus on a
specific societal group. 
________________________

 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Blossom Michaeloff [mailto:bmichaeloff@mindspring.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:18 AM
To: shawn@w3.org
Subject: business case


Hi, Shawn - 

I didn't have time today to post to the list, so am sending this email
from home.

I think your new Overview is a huge step forward. It's now truly an
overview: clear headings that make the page (and suite) more
approachable, clear summary of the Factors, and nifty Outline of Factors
at the end. Nicely done!

I haven't had time to read thoroughly, but one thing I did notice is
that I feel the second paragraph of the intro focuses a bit too much on
the initial costs. The following rewrite de-emphasizes this a bit:
________________________

Although there is an initial cost for organizations implementing Web
accessibility, the initial costs are often offset by full a return on
investment through direct and indirect benefits. However, to be willing
to accept the initial costs, many organizations may need to understand
the benefits of Web accessibility and the expectations of the returns. 

The justification to commit resources to a project is called a "business
case". Business cases usually document an analysis of the value of the
project in meeting the organization's objectives, the cost-benefit
analysis, and expected outcomes.
________________________

Also, in the Intros to each of the Factors, the ideas are jumbled in the
two paragraphs. You begin with info about "This page," switch to info
about the Factor covered, and in the final sentence in the second
paragraph revert to "This page...." - i.e., two separate ideas in the
second paragraph. I would rewrite as (for example, Social Factors):
________________________
 
This page describes social factors relating to Web accessibility,
provides questions to help focus how social factors are covered in a
business case for a specific organization, and gives examples of how
social factors can be addressed in a customized case for Web
accessibility. It is part of a resource suite that also describes
technical, financial, and legal and policy factors to consider in
presenting a case for Web accessibility. 

The importance of social factors apply differently to specific
organizations and situations. For example, one organization's goal might
be to become a leader in corporate social responsibility (CSR); a
different organization might be particularly interested in attracting
capital from socially responsible investing (SRI) sources; and another
organization might be interested in demonstrating its focus on a
specific societal group. 
________________________

Gotta go now and get to bed....

Regards, 

Blossom
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:54:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:10 GMT