Re: Accessibility philosophy (from the WCAG2/JAWS thread)

(Using the subject Chaals suggests)

Hi all,

Here's a relevant economic report that was put together a couple years ago at the University of Toronto:
http://martinprosperity.org/2010/06/14/releasing-constraints-projecting-the-economic-impacts-of-increased-accessibility-in-ontario/

The report was released as the Canadian province of Ontario began rolling out standards for its "Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)". 

Re: Marketing of accessibility: I think the Ontario government does a reasonable job of keeping things upbeat yet informative (http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/index.aspx). I'm sure other governments are also taking this approach as well, for example this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEM9Fn9aOG8) by the Australian Government.

Cheers,
Jan

(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844 
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/ 
Faculty of Design | OCAD University



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
> Sent: July-28-12 2:18 PM
> To: David Woolley
> Cc: Bryan Garaventa; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS
> 
> David is in my view straight on here.
> When decisions are made the question is first asked, what will we gain?
> That may mean how much profit, how much pr etc.
> The marketing people are not getting the numbers that reflect how
> beneficial on  many levels access is.
> Given the vast academic outfits involved, I am frankly surprised someone has
> not done this by now.
> The sort of market research that demonstrates how much  individuals
> experiencing disabilities actually put into the economy sort of research.
> My guess has always been that the research is not done because of the
> typical focus, be accessible because the law requires it, or because it is the
> kind thing to do...not because you tap into revenue that way.
> 
> The engineers may want to do it, because making things accessible can be
> fun if presented like that.
> the marketing department may veto it though because they think it plays to
> a knish with no benefit resulting.
> Again its these sorts of people who should learn more about the positive
> aspects of access.
> 
> Karen
> 
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, David Woolley wrote:
> 
> > Bryan Garaventa wrote:
> >>
> >>  The only way to implement true web accessibility in the future is to
> >> involve  engineers at the corporate, organizational, and academic
> >> levels.
> >>  Otherwise,
> >>  more and more policies will be created, and relatively few will have
> >> the  knowledge or desire to understand them.
> >>
> >
> > In my view, the failure is much more likely to arise from marketing
> > people than engineers.  Whilst most engineers may not realise, even
> > those who do, and may even raise an issue report, are likely to get
> overruled by marketing.
> > Some may self censor, because they know they will be rejected, and
> > most may just have learned to think like marketing people as the best
> > way of being appreciated in the organisation.
> >
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 15:21:53 UTC