[w3c-wai-eo] <none>

There is a telling phrase in 
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/assess-pre.htm :"it is not possible to 
disaggregate the data in a manner that it is useful for purposes of this 
assessment" which makes any attempt to use the usual methods of "costing" 
the implementation of what we propose in our "business case".

Usually the burden will be on any claim that implementation would involve 
an "undue burden" in the economic sense. It becomes a game of pitting 
notions of "this would wipe us out" vs. "human/civil rights trump greed" in 
an ages-old debate.

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/assessment.htm#EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
contains the essential abstract points that address the matter *once a 
"decision to implement" has been made*. Such decisions are now commonplace 
in industry and mandated via various policy statements in governments 
around the world.

So without copping out re advising how to describe the incremental increase 
in cost of implementing accessibility features into Web materials, I must 
confess that this seems to be only addressable in a general/philosophical 
narrative rather than a spreadsheet.

Once it is agreed that materials are to be made accessible through 
Universal Design processes, the incremental addition of that portion (which 
is no longer separate from the overall design procedure) enabling access 
has essentially trivial cost - actually no more than spelling/grammar 
checking, i.e. when tools conforming to ATAG are used to create Webstuff, 
it will cost more to find out how much more it costs to use the 
accessiblity-enhancing features of those tools than it costs to use them!

The matter of retrofitting is more complex but may not be what we are 
addressing in our business case scenarios.



--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Friday, 23 February 2001 08:02:15 UTC