- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:02:21 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
John wrote: > Imagine contracting a plumber to install new water lines in your building, and he offers you 2 prices: one price to get it done, and a higher price to getting it done to building code standards. I know this happens. Actually I contracted with an electrician last year and I couldn't afford to have the "up-to-code" fix so I chose to go with the other option because I had too. The up-to-code fix required more work, more hours and thus cost more. I believe we all agree that accessibility should not cost more and that organizations should have a culture and people on staff who know accessiblity. The reality however is not that. Many organizations don't fully understand accessibility and do not have qualified people on staff. One aspect that was touched-upon that I think really does increase the cost is testing. Not just testing with end users but writing and running tests both manual and automated using several tools, browsers, ATs and different scenarios. Just as testing with multiple browses increases testing times and requires browser-based selenium tests, so does testing different types of AT on different browsers and with different methods of navigation. Even if I'm a good code CSS coder, there are differences between IE6 and Firefox 3 and I have to know, find, test these issues out and have appropriate code for this. When I created a website for doctor last year I ran into these issues with IE6 and supporting multiple user agents and versions -- the effort was great even for a simple site. I agree it shouldn't be that way but not all organization have the resources and access to libraries and tools that support cross-browser code. I often related different assistive technologies as different user agents/browsers. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Foliot Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 1:18 AM To: 'Ian Pouncey'; 'Lainey Feingold' Cc: 'Sandi Wassmer'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: RE: Costs of Accessibility? Ian Pouncey wrote: > > By all means include 'accessibility' as a contractual requirement, but > if an agency tenders for a job and includes the cost of accessibility > as an extra line item I would strongly suggest that you choose another > provider. I could not concur more strongly! The means and technical capability to create accessible web content has existed for more than a decade in some way or form, and Adaptive Technology has existed even longer than that! That it should somehow cost more to do this today is a difficult hurdle to overcome. Imagine contracting a plumber to install new water lines in your building, and he offers you 2 prices: one price to get it done, and a higher price to getting it done to building code standards. > This core element of web development should come as > standard, you should not expect to pay extra for it anymore than you > would expect to pay extra for CSS. To be sure however, there is a cost to having a good CSS practitioner on any team, and so too there will be a cost of having a similar accessibility practitioner. In very large organizations, this amounts to physical bodies (and attendant payrolls), but in smaller shops, just as most workers will have a working experience with all of the required technologies (html, css, javascripting, etc.) so too should there be a culture of "accessible from the get-go" which means skills development* for those developers: better/larger shops would likely have a dedicated accessibility specialist who would work with both shop developers as well as clients to ensure success. That individual's participation would vary from project to project, but could likely be as high as 10% of any given project, but likely much lower in most circumstances. Scope, size and level of complexity will be the unknown variables here. (*If pressed to determine a 'cost', the price of skills enhancement (training) is one dollar figure that could be analyzed/contemplated. However like other expenses of this nature, it is a longer term investment rather than a line item cost.) > > If you are paying for usability testing then this should cover a wide > range of users as standard, including those with disabilities. Testing > will never cover all users, disabled or otherwise, but should cover > varying capabilities and requirements, from experienced and > inexperienced web users to those who use an assistive technology or > have specific needs beyond those of the average user. +1 > > Sadly we are not at the stage when we can make these assumptions, but > I think encouraging this mindset when it comes to procurement in large > organisations such as The U.S. Department of Justice is one way we can > force agencies to up their game and provide the services that they > should. Agreed. Contractors or large internal development shops need to first adopt a "culture of accessible design", after which the amount of resources required will depend on any number of factors, many difficult to quantify in any meaningful way. Attempting to identify a specific cost to ensuring accessibility is thus very difficult to define, and in many ways frustrates the greater goal of first developing this culture of accessibility. JF
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 14:02:53 UTC