- From: jt <tobias@inclusive.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 07:16:13 -0500
- To: <uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu>, <uaccess-l@tracecenter.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I'm glad Charles has taken the time and the courage to present us with his opinions on web access, and I also hope that we are in for an extended and polite discussion of them. His openness and geniality should guide his respondents. I agree with almost everything he says, and whatever I don't specifically agree with, I see as an eloquent statement of the business perspective on web access, and universal design in general. Leaving aside the legal and ethical motivations to improve access, and focusing only on the commercial motivations, brings us to a difficult but important point. We must admit that as soon as we open the door to commercial considerations, the decision to add access features or not puts access in competition with all other activities people within the company are lobbting for. Everyone has a pet project, and everyone uses all the available arguments to promote it. Even if we just focus on websites, and assume that a company has a certain amount of time and money to spend on "improving" it, they must still decide which "improvement" will get them the most "bang for the buck" ("poder para el peso?"). Not just whether a given improvement will pay off, but which will pay off the most. Most web access advocates consider the job done when they prove that adding web access features can be cost-effective. But companies (and individuals) make decisions on whether an investment is cost-efficient. This rapidly boils down to a recognition that those we seek to influence look at the issue differently than access advocates do. If we choose to focus only on having corporate webweavers undergo "conversion experiences," we will be stuck with Mr. Munat's first and third complaints: condescension and in- fighting. Luckily, most of us recognize that what we need to do on the motivational front is to show what can be done easily (especially what other companies have done), and to continue to argue the "additional benefits" to non-disabled users by specific examples that are relevant to our audience. I hope this makes sense and advances the discussion. Jim Jim Tobias Inclusive Technologies tobias@inclusive.com 732.441.0831 v/tty 732.441.0832 fax http://www.inclusive.com
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 07:15:41 UTC