Re: Comments on "Web Accessibility is Smart Business" Presentation

  Thanks for the comments, Alan. Replies below with "SLH:".

EOWG, Please reply to the questions below.

On 5/13/2011 7:29 AM, Alan Chuter wrote:
> These comments mostly concern the notes, and what the speaker might
> say as a result.
>
> [wise investment in accessibility] "...the benefits of accessibility
> far outweigh any costs". Isn't this a rather outspoken statement?
> Perhaps it could lead the presenter to get into difficulty with an
> argumentative audience. Maybe it should be qualified as "can far
> outweigh any costs"

SLH: Good question. Personally I would say that the benefits to society and individuals far outweigh the costs overall; however, certainly there could be specific cases where the quantifiable business benefits to do not clearly far outweigh the costs for an individual organization.

This is the intro slide and the full text says: " This presentation looks at why the benefits of accessibility far outweigh any costs, and how you realize such returns on investment in accessibility." Certainly we could say "why the benefits of accessibility can far outweigh any costs" or "why the benefits of accessibility usually far outweigh any costs" but that makes it wimpy.

Maybe it's OK here as a broad statement, rather than talking about a specific organization?

EOWG: Is this statement OK in this context, or do we need a qualifier (can or usually or such). Is there a way to reword it to be still strong but not as arguable?

</end SLH>

> [market quote] Maybe the speaker could translate the figures into
> "That's a 57% chance it could be your neighbour/next customer"

SLH: Changed "Accessibility reaches these users." to "Would you like to better reach 57% of your potential users?"

>  The percent sign seems to be included twice, once in a frame.

SLH: Fixed. (It was there to facilitate the build, but I redid the whole thing better.)


> [reach people in more situations] The phrase "coded well" is jargon, I
> think.

SLH: Suggestions for different wording? Or, is it OK for this audience, especially given it's a minor point in context?

> "Improves usability for all" slide: "limited fine motor control" will
> perhaps not mean much to a general audience. Perhaps say "people who
> have difficulty controlling the movement of their hands".

SLH: That would add a lot of words to a minor point. Maybe it is OK in context: " Make all functionality available from a keyboard... “Power users” are often faster using keyboard shortcuts instead of the mouse. Many older users with limited fine motor control have difficulty using a mouse. And speech input is usually more effective with keyboard commands." ?

> "Web Accessibility is Smart Business" slide: "...all the users
> accessibility reaches" is a rather confusing construct. Maybe "...all
> the users an accessible website can reach".

SLH: I deleted the note all together. If we leave the new Risk slide before that slide, then the note doesn't make sense, and the slide text is sufficient.

> "Alternative text usage" slide. The phrase "can’t tell what an image
> is" could be confusing to non-native speakers. Maybe "can’t understand
> the information contained in an image".

SLH: Changed to " Screen readers don’t know what information is provided in an image."
> "OK . . . but what does it cost?" slide, last paragraph: Instead of
> "new to accessibility" could be "who have ignored accessibility" or
> "who so far haven't paid attention to all their users".

SLH: Ha! You sound like Liam. <grin> To be fair, there could be some people who really haven't heard about accessibility. Let's not insult them.

> "decrease costs" costs slide: "Include accessibility from the very
> beginning..." could add about including it in any contract for site
> design. "Share accessibility resources across an organization" could
> mention including it in regular staff training.

SLH: We have in the "tips" slide "Make WCAG 2.0 Level AA a clear requirement, including when procuring websites.". I wonder if saying include it in regular staff training might seem like more of a cost than a way to decrease costs in a short mention here? That is, it would take a bit to explain that the investment in training would pay off. Since it's not a strong point without some explanation, I think better left off here.

> "Transcripts for audio" the information cited is for English-speaking
> countries. I imagine that costs could vary widely from one locale to
> another and this could cause problems for presenters from other
> countries.

SLH: I added "Note to presenters: Customize the cost for transcripts for your location." It would be good to be able to provide costs for other languages. http://www.uiaccess.com/transcripts/transcript_services.html welcome submissions <grin>

> "Return from accessibility" slide: Mention maintenance costs and
> repurposing content that is marked up properly.

SLH: We have in "cut maintenance costs by 66%". There are a whole lot of specific benefits that we're not mentioning. We have "Notes to presenters: Customize the examples based on the audience, for example, use different examples if most of the audience works with educational institutions than if most work with online retailers."

EOWG: I was tempted to add "For more see the Financial Factors page http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/fin.html" on this slide and also a in few other slide notes add pointers to specific parts of the business case resource. But that adds a lot of clutter when we already say at the beginning and the end to read the business case pages. Thoughts?

SLH: Thanks again for your comments, Alan. Although I am eager to get this wrapped up, I welcome additional discussion on anything you feel strongly about.

Best,
~Shawn

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 14:13:13 UTC