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

[business case] Re: Policy on Web accessibility

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 23:11:16 -0500
Message-Id: <200111070408.XAA1832327@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Phill Jenkins suggested you should fold the ideas in my post quoted below
[archived at]

 Re: Policy on Web accessibility

in the Business Case.  So I'm passing along a this pointer and copy for your


-- quote

>Importance: Normal
>Subject: Re: Policy on Web accessibility
>To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
>X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 (Intl) 21 March 2000
>From: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
>Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:28:46 -0600
>X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NMS23/04/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18,
2001) at
> 11/06/2001 05:28:49 PM
>Al, I though you made some good comments that should be captured in the
>EO's Business Case write-up at
>Phill Jenkins,  (512) 838-4517
>IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center
>11501 Burnet Rd,  Austin TX  78758   
>Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>@w3.org on 11/06/2001 11:21:20 AM
>Sent by:  w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
>To:   "Craig Hadley" <craig@4thandgoal.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>Subject:  Re: Policy on Web accessibility
>At 11:00 AM 2001-11-06 , Craig Hadley wrote:
>>Hello All,
>>I am pitching for some new business this week. The project is a web site
>>re-design for a firm that falls under U.S. 508 as a contractor. The
>>is that the managers of the firm gave me several examples of what they
>>including their favorite site discovery.com.
>>So I took a look at discovery.com. And (please correct me if I am wrong)
>>discovery.com doesn't even seem to try in regards to accessibility
>>So what do I say when I go back to pitch meeting and the prospective
>>says "If an international media conglomerate like Discovery does their web
>>site that way, why can't we?".
>There are two chief points, here.
>First, to reduce your own blood pressure, review the before/after examples
>WebAIM or a similar site.  What your customers likes about the Dicovery
>and what makes it inaccessible are not strongly linked.  There may have to
>be a few concessions in what they like, but not much.  And if it is a
>of being over-busy, then you need to get the Nielsen/Norman document out
>show them that what they like is not reaching the audience they are paid to
>reach, and they need to think again.
>Second, as to why your customer's customer has to respond to a higher
>standard, it's simple.  The government has a conspicuous monopoly.
>dealing with discovery.com at least seem to have a choice to deal with
>competitors. Because the perception of monopoly is very strong when it
>to your government, the social decisions about political vs. commercial
>institutions recognize a distinction in non-discrimination burdens.  The
>government is under more pressure to serve all citizens fairly than is
>to serve all comers.  Discovery should put up an accessible site; sure.
>your customer MUST put up an accessible site and whining about 'why can
>doesn't even enter into the question.  [ADA aside, there is a prevailing
>difference in expectations.]
>This is entirely why they need _you_.  If they just copy Discovery in
>ignorance of what it takes to comply, their customer will reject the work
>they will have cost to spend and egg on their faces.  If they hire you they
>can have a friendly look and feel and a compliant site to boot.  Where do
>we send the check?
>Your customers would just as instantly tell you "of course we will meet our
>contract obligations" as tell you they like Discovery.com.  You hold the
>key to meeting both criteria.  There is much more orthogonality than
>opposition in the difference.
>>Thanks for starting to publish documents like "Sample Implementation Plans
>>for Web Accessibility "
>ase/ip . Those
>>types of resources make explaining the discussion possibilities to
>>savvy managers much easier.
>>Craig Hadley
>>Madison, WI
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 23:08:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:32 UTC