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

RE: EOWG: Please read/review latest business case draft before 2 April 2004 teleconference

From: Shawn Lawton Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:45:12 -0500
To: "'William Loughborough'" <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: "wai eo editors" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000d01c4218f$dd146dc0$418d7544@SLHenry>

William,

Thank you for your review and comments on the business case. I will post
a revised version with your changes and other's changes soon. 

Replies to your comments are below surrounded by brackets []. Let me
know if you want to discuss any of them.

Regards,

~ Shawn



[DONE] OVERVIEW:

intro bullet 4 "It crystallizes [solidifies?] an organization's
commitment 
to social responsibility."
        bullet 5 "It demonstrates compliance with appropriately defined 
laws/regulations/standards concerning accessibility."

In general, reference is made to a "right to information". IMO this is
the 
central factor in all of this and hasn't been given a prominent enough 
exposition. This is not only a completely new concept, but a quite
radical 
one and should quite possibly be addressed before anything else. In
fact, 
this is exactly what "accessibility" means and is at the root of
providing 
the oft-touted "level playing field".


[DONE] SOCIAL FACTORS:

The intro contains near-gratuitous (because they are not widely used 
outside this document) abbreviations: SRI and CSR. Their inclusion is 
almost like satire. The references somehow seem suspect, probably
because 
unless one is "in the choir" they sound almost like religious
contrivances: 
the already-convinced don't need them and the "hard-hearted bean
counters" 
won't believe them. The point that "CSR" also has a financial upside is 
less important than its inherent decency/humanity or even
"spirituality". 
It's good in and of itself without the need for a study showing that it 
probably benefits the "bottom line".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Social Factors need not (and 
possibly should not) include the financial benefits.


[DONE] TECHNICAL:

Might be an opportunity to include references to the work being done by
the 
Device Independence Group and thus include the notion that W3C provides 
technological approaches that integrate 
accessibility/interoperability/usability into methods that make their 
understanding/application much more sensible than the previous means of 
implementing Web stuff which largely tried to imitate printed 
brochures/catalogs/forms.


[think hiring PWD doesn't fit into this doc] FINANCIAL:

If possible, it might be a good place to put in a plug for hiring PWD. A

lot of this sounds similar to the usual pitches about how loyal/reliable

this community is and that attracting such employees brings tax benefits
as 
well as brownie points.


[DONE] LEGAL/POLICY:

Perhaps references from here could include some notorious examples of
legal 
costs (not to mention attendant Public Relations costs) in other fields 
that could logically presage similar instances in matters of
accessibility. 
The impact of ignored regulations can be devastating. Some variation on 
"programmers are cheaper than lawyers" might be in order?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of William Loughborough
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:06 PM
> To: Judy Brewer; EOWG
> Subject: Re: EOWG: Please read/review latest business case 
> draft before 2 April 2004 teleconference
> 
> 
> At 06:18 PM 3/31/2004 -0500, Judy Brewer wrote:
> >Please review and comment on the full resource suite before our
> >teleconference this week
> 
> The Suite is presented as a resource containing building 
> blocks with which 
> one can make a tailored business case for use in various 
> environments and 
> from that point of view it need not be as "polished" as the 
> individual 
> cases that are created using its content for 
> inspiration/inclusion. This 
> means that the Overview sort of stands alone and that the 
> other "factor" 
> sections are more reference points for someone creating a 
> "business case".
> 
> The group has been working on this for several years and this 
> generaliz(s)ed format seems very suitable: let the user of 
> the overview 
> create the business case document! Through this interactivity 
> we exemplify 
> the process and give someone using this resource the ability 
> to feel a part 
> of the effort.
> 
> 
> OVERVIEW:
> 
> intro bullet 4 "It crystallizes [solidifies?] an 
> organization's commitment 
> to social responsibility."
>         bullet 5 "It demonstrates compliance with 
> appropriately defined 
> laws/regulations/standards concerning accessibility."
> 
> In general, reference is made to a "right to information". 
> IMO this is the 
> central factor in all of this and hasn't been given a 
> prominent enough 
> exposition. This is not only a completely new concept, but a 
> quite radical 
> one and should quite possibly be addressed before anything 
> else. In fact, 
> this is exactly what "accessibility" means and is at the root 
> of providing 
> the oft-touted "level playing field".
> 
> 
> SOCIAL FACTORS:
> 
> The intro contains near-gratuitous (because they are not widely used 
> outside this document) abbreviations: SRI and CSR. Their inclusion is 
> almost like satire. The references somehow seem suspect, 
> probably because 
> unless one is "in the choir" they sound almost like religious 
> contrivances: 
> the already-convinced don't need them and the "hard-hearted 
> bean counters" 
> won't believe them. The point that "CSR" also has a financial 
> upside is 
> less important than its inherent decency/humanity or even 
> "spirituality". 
> It's good in and of itself without the need for a study 
> showing that it 
> probably benefits the "bottom line".
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Social Factors 
> need not (and 
> possibly should not) include the financial benefits.
> 
> 
> TECHNICAL:
> 
> Might be an opportunity to include references to the work 
> being done by the 
> Device Independence Group and thus include the notion that 
> W3C provides 
> technological approaches that integrate 
> accessibility/interoperability/usability into methods that make their 
> understanding/application much more sensible than the 
> previous means of 
> implementing Web stuff which largely tried to imitate printed 
> brochures/catalogs/forms.
> 
> 
> FINANCIAL:
> 
> If possible, it might be a good place to put in a plug for 
> hiring PWD. A 
> lot of this sounds similar to the usual pitches about how 
> loyal/reliable 
> this community is and that attracting such employees brings 
> tax benefits as 
> well as brownie points.
> 
> 
> LEGAL/POLICY:
> 
> Perhaps references from here could include some notorious 
> examples of legal 
> costs (not to mention attendant Public Relations costs) in 
> other fields 
> that could logically presage similar instances in matters of 
> accessibility. 
> The impact of ignored regulations can be devastating. Some 
> variation on 
> "programmers are cheaper than lawyers" might be in order?
> 
> 
> --
> Love.
> 
> It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious! 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:54:41 GMT

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