Ref: Investment Considerations

1. Replace "investment" with "cost" in this section. Also avoid the term "capital".

We are talking of costs that might be of a "capital nature" that need to be incurred less often whose usefulness lasts for more than one accounting period, as well as costs that might be more repetitive. So it is inappropriate to use the term "investment". Besides it is not for us to decide what is capital and what is not- some orgs may treat an expense as of capital nature and some orgs might treat the same expenditure differently. This is an accounting term and an accounting decision for an org. So let us keep it simple and just use "costs".

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. "

3. "The cost of including accessibility is usually a small percentage of the overall Web site development cost."

Need to be careful here. (Natasha too sounded a warning on Oct 24 meeting) This might be true when a new website is being built with accessibility in mind. Retrofitting can be expensive, might need workflow / process changes / training etc and often fails to be prioritized as it may involve re-doing content and may be resisted. Also, what is "small"... can we indicate a range more objectively? Consider words like insignificant or negligible too. Argument can be stronger by relating incremental cost of accessibility not only to total Web content dev costs but to total expenses of running the org.

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?

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."

6. Consider listing costs (non exhaustive):

The costs most likely to be incurred for making Web content accessible might be attributable to the following:

Audit or evaluation of the state of accessibility of website and Web applications
Tools that allow authoring accessible content
Content management software that integrate accessibility design and development practices (The above two can be substituted with: Adopting processes / CMS that allow authoring accessible content; some might even integrate evaluation and repair capabilities)
Training staff to design and develop accessible Web content
Obtaining transcriptions, translations and captioning for multi media content
Automated tools for Web accessibility evaluation and repair
Quality assurance / testing processes to ensure Web accessibility
Assistive technologies normally used for computer access by people with disabilities. Web content can be tested with assistive technologies. ( I put this one here because Shawn has it in the doc. But I cannot vouch for its effectiveness unless content is tested by knowledgeable and experienced PWD actually using the AT. WCAG 1.0 also recommendsthat PWDs using AT should test).
Obtaining certification that Web content is accessible

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. "

8. We need to briefly state why websites are inaccessible

... in Financial Factors page or Overview page. It will help put things in perspective. Reasons for inaccessible content

Most managements and Web content designers / developers are unaware of alternative Web browsing practices using special access technologies and unintentionally exclude this segment of users by developing content that is accessible only to most non-disabled users
Assistive technologies capable of being used for Web access have matured only in the last decade
Guidelines for making Web content, user agents and authoring tools accessible have been defined only since the late nineties
Absence of legislation requiring Web content to be accessible in most parts of the world
The right of people with disabilities to access Web content has been recognized only in recent years and that too in advanced countries