Re: "RisK' in "Web Accessibility is Smart Business"

Hi Shawn,
dear EOWG,

actually in Germany there is no risk anyway, especially not for the
private sector. The experiences from the last years have shown, that
there is also no risk for those who have to do it. I don't want to
fragment the presentation, but is it possible to have an alternative
version for this slide?



2011/6/21 Shawn Henry <>:
>  Hi Rob,
> Thanks for the input. For some organizations, the legal risk is the primary
> motivator for accessibility, and really the only reason that they do it.
> "protect against unintended consequences" does have a nice ring to it, but
> might not work well with non-native speakers. Some felt the more clear "
> reduces risk of legal action" would be best in this case. So for this next
> draft we're trying leaving it in -- within the totally different and
> positive approach that you agree with below.
> Thanks,
> ~Shawn
> On 6/10/2011 7:36 AM, Robert Yonaitis wrote:
>> All,
>> I agree with Karl that legal action risk statements can be problematic
>> and Shadi on being more positive and on the order in which the risk is
>> presented in a positive manner:
>> # Slide 13 [Reduces risk of legal action]: - "reducing the risk of legal
>> action"
>> I suggest changing the title of the slide to "other benefits" or such
>> (as a follow-on from the previous slides), and mentioning some of the
>> other benefits such as:
>>  - "demonstrating corporate social responsibility"
>>  - "complying with the UN Convention on the Rights for Persons with
>> Disabilities (CRPD)"
>>  - "reducing the risk of legal action"
>> I would just remove the third line all together and replace it with
>> "protect against unintended consequences" and in the speakers notes
>> add some discussion on eliminating customers, limiting information
>> dissemination, the possible legal hassles etc.
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Karl Groves<>
>>  wrote:
>>> Sorry for the very late timing on this e-mail.
>>> The more I think about it, the more I think that having a slide that
>>> discusses risk is like leaving a landmine of "fail" out there to get stepped
>>> on by the presenter.  It can have a significant effect or it can be like
>>> "proving" that accessibility is nothing to be concerned about.  I've been
>>> refining my own thoughts regarding risk, and I think the argument is
>>> compelling for large organizations.  Of course, the converse is true as
>>> well.  Risk for small and medium companies is almost negligible. If these
>>> slides are presented by someone without a firm grasp on the exact legal
>>> landscape for the audience, it might work against them.
>>> Additionally, most of the litigation on web accessibility has taken place
>>> in the US, with a little bit happening in Canada and UK. The rest of the
>>> presentation is universal while this really isn't. Because this is a
>>> presentation of the W3C, we may want to avoid being so US-centric here.
>>> Thanks.
>>> Karl L. Groves
>>> Director, Training
>>> Deque Systems, Inc.
>>> Phone:  443.517.9280
>>> E-mail:
>>> Is a non-compliant website putting your organization at risk? Visit

Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
Tel.: 06421 167002


*** Neue Veröffentlichung ***

Barrierefreiheit verstehen und umsetzen:
Webstandards für ein zugängliches und nutzbares Internet
812 S., Dpunkt Verlag, Auflage: 1 (März 2011)
Kurzlink zu Amazon:

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 18:29:36 UTC