- From: Shawn Lawton Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:10:12 -0600
- To: "'Sailesh Panchang'" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <000001c3a402$bad90320$08827544@SLHenry>
1. Replace "investment" with "cost" in this section. Also avoid the term "capital". SLH: I changed the section title from "investment considerations" to "cost considerations" Do you think we need to change "Potential initial capital expenditures include:" as a heading for evaluation tools, AT, and upgrades (as opposed to human resources costs - which is mostly just a way to group a long list)? 2. Consider following introduction for this section of the doc: "It is important for an organization to recognize that making Web content accessible is not a one time effort and expense but needs long term commitment as Web content and Web applications undergo changes and revisions over time. Besides monetary costs, an organization needs to be prepared to invest the extra time needed for the effort especially during the initial stages, and also overcome any resistance to changing content development and deployment processes. " SLH: Tried to get some of the ideas in there, without going into too much detail or drifting out of scope. We have training and maintenance, and a bit about ongoing costs. Does that cover it? 3. "The cost of including accessibility is usually a small percentage of the overall Web site development cost." SLH: changed to "When accessibility is incorporated from the beginning of Web site development it is often a small percentage of the overall Web site cost." 4. Strongly feel that repeating "leads to cost savings later on" is not necessary in this section. The argument about someone going straight to this section can be made about any other section, so do they warrant similar inclusion of content from other sections? SLH: took them out 5. Consider replacing "costs are early investments at an organization level..." by saying : "Very little or nothing needs to be done to make an individual project accessible once the process of authoring(or building) accessible content has been internalized at the organizational level." SLH: edited 6. Consider listing costs (non exhaustive): SLH: put them in <DL> - Obtaining certification that Web content is accessible SLH: I'm very hesitant to put this in. primarily because it's not a required cost of accessibility. also because i want to be careful that it doesn't look like WAI is endorsing certification. if you think it should be in there, we shoud talk about it in EOWG 7. The following content also needs to be introduced into this section - preferably after listing the above cost elements. "Some of these costs might be incurred more frequently than others. An organization might choose to outsource some or all of the processes which will then require retaining consultants well versed in accessibility design and testing or firms that provide such services. Another organization might choose to build the capability inhouse by equipping itself with the necessary tools, software and staff. The costs also depend on the approach adopted for implementing Web accessibility. some organizations prefer to assign priorities to various types of Web content. One possible classification of Web content is: - Content that is important from the organization's perspective. For example, a business might like to make its products and service offering pages accessible before working on pages that contains content of interest to investors or job seekers. Another organization might reverse the order. An organization running a passenger bus / rail network might consider making its schedules accessible first. - Web applications- secure and non-secure - multi-media Web content that might need extra effort for providing text alternative content / transcriptions / captions. - static versus dynamic Web content The level of accessibility sought to be attained may also influence the process and therefore the costs. It is possible for instance, that the efforts and time required for an organization to attain a mandated accessibility level (if any), that is lower than the one recommended as the most desirable by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, might be lower. Just like itt is more economical and easier to plan and incorporate accessibility into a physical structure like a new building than an existing one, it is more easier on all counts to make a new Website accessible than retrofitting an existing website for accessibility features. In other words, it costs less to designed and develop a website with accessibility in mind. " SLH: I wonder if this is too detailed? Let's discuss in EOWG... 8. We need to briefly state why websites are inaccessible... in Financial Factors page or Overview page. It will help put things in perspective. SLH: I think that is out of the scope of this document - yet very interesting - and I'm not sure where it fits in other WAI resources.
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2003 20:10:55 UTC