- From: Asif <asif@studynook.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:26:45 -0500
- To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Interesting Kynn. Just my point of view: If you all go into business the listserve diminishes somewhat. Those of us listening in, will not gain as much. It then becomes a business model and folks will need to pay for advice (atleast good advice). One would hope that there probably be a balance between the 2. Of course being employed is critical. I thought most folks, including yourself, were running companies based on accessibility....obviously, I'm mistaken. Indeed, you should benefit from your expertise, thus maybe if the advice column on a listserve gets too long then it would be time for a professional referral? Not sure what the rules of the listserve articulate as far as that is concerned? Hey, about charging more for your course, wait until after I take it in Jan.... :-) Asif./ -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:49 PM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility A couple of weeks ago on the WebAIM list, I made an off-the-cuff remark about how I should charge more for the work I do related to web accessibility. I wasn't really serious, but some folks piped up anyway to show appreciation to me, and I graciously accept it. Thinking on the matter further, though, has got me thinking about the commercialization of web accessibility -- about increasing moves away from simple grass-roots help and toward the idea of web accessibilty as a business model. Much of the newfound profitability of web accessibility stems directly from the U.S. government's Section 508 requirements for accessibility -- a legislative remedy that I've both praised as excellent in theory and criticized as poor in implementation. One major effect of 508 has been to carve out new niche markets which didn't exist before, in terms of services and support for accesible web design. The effects of this are debatable -- there have been a number of moves by for-profit and non-profit groups alike to "cash in" on these new market niches. This may not be a bad thing, as for years web accessibility was _not_ a hot, "sexy" item and a number of people and companies, myself included, have not made nearly the money that would normally be coming to us if we'd give up this accessibility cause and spend our time in the pursuit of profit. On the other hand, there's questions as to the changing nature of the field and whether or not that will have positive implications on the end users of the Internet who may have disabilities. Here's some of the things I'm thinking about today: * CAST's Bobby program is no longer free. The web version has no charge associated with it, but the downloadable, locally run program (for checking mass numbers of pages, pages behind a firewall, or those which aren't live yet) is now $99. (Or far more for a site license.) * The Brainbench test on accessibility is no longer free either; it's now $20 or so, if you want to test your knowledge of web accessibility and certify it with an online test. * My own web accessibility online course -- running since 1998 -- has been joined by a number of other online courses. WebAIM, EASI, WOW. All of these have a higher price point than my seven-week course by about a factor of 3 to 10; perhaps I need to up rates to stay competitive. * Macromedia has recently put out a nice package of materials on accessibility -- but to get it, apparently you need to buy a Macromedia product. * Jakob Nielsen's done an accessibility and usability study; you can buy it for about $200 in PDF format. The WAI idea of cooperative, consensus-based creation of accessibility guidelines doesn't seem to be particularly proftiable. * Books are in production on web accessibility, including books written by members of the W3C's working group. Joe Clark is the most obvious example; his blog has mentioned great advances in figuring out how to make web sites accessible. But you won't read about them in WCAG 2.0 -- you'll need to buy Joe's book. * A number of new companies -- or perhaps old companies with new marketing budgets -- have sprung up to offer accessibility consulting and evaluation services at prices of dozens of thousands of dollars or more. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not stating the above as items which should (or should not) be criticized. I'm looking at them as part of a bigger picture, and I'm asking the question of whether or not this will have a net positive effect. Many of the things listed are indicative of a greater awareness of web accessibility, and that's something I and others have been working on for a long time. The increase in the number of training options, the corporate attention to the issue, the involvement of a major usability "celebrity" in championing accessibility, the greater willingness of publishers to take a chance on an accessibility book -- these are all welcome changes for the better. But other things need to be considered as well, such as the continuing role of the W3C in these events, the possibility of "profiteering" (if that's even a bad thing), the increasing expense to the independent web designer, and so on. I'm not sure if these questions are currently being raised, and I'm not entirely sure which forum is appropriate for raising them (and thus the fact that you may see this posted several places). Will we see, for example, a "proprietization" of web accessibility techniques? Will Macromedia or Kynn Bartlett or Joe Clark or anyone else decide that it's not worth their time to work on consensus-based projects but instead to create copyrighted materials? Will instructors of online classes realize that they can make more money doing consulting instead of training other consultants who then get the lucrative gigs? Will A-Prompt or the W3C Validator become victims of their own success and decide to start charging since Bobby did? I don't think people are getting rich in droves off this, by the way. I don't imagine CAST bigwigs sitting back cackling with glee, or Joe Clark buying a huge mansion with the advances on his hard work. And I wouldn't even object if it were happening -- partly because I think there are a number of people who have done great work who have been financially UNrewarded for their efforts, and partially out of pure self-interest greed. Hey, I'd love for my chosen field of interest to suddenly become the path to financial freedom! A better explanation is that this is "web accessibility growing up", at least a little bit. Of new forces that weren't at work several years ago now coming to the fore, and with those, we need to look at existing processes and see how they're being changed. It's time to discuss the role of the W3C in the future of web accessibility. It's time to discuss the corporate and government interests. It's time to re-evaluate what we're doing and where things are going, and for it's time for some of us to make clearer plans and provide vision. This rambled on a bit more than I thought it would. While some of it may be generated by my ongoing state of unemployment (and thus opportunity and motive to consider the larger picture), I believe these are topics that would be good for discussion among people who share the same goal of improving accessibility of the web for everyone. What do you think? --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 17:36:35 UTC