W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2017

RE: Accessibility part in development process

From: Urban, Mark (CDC/OCOO/OCIO/ITSO) <fka2@cdc.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:23:52 +0000
To: "'Batusic, Mario'" <mario.batusic@fabasoft.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <04b05ab1c1364d4a87ea5750f26c064d@cdc.gov>
Quick correction – ICDRI is still maintained and updated!  ☺


Regards,
Mark D. Urban
CDC Section 508 Coordinator
fka2@cdc.gov<mailto:fka2@cdc.gov>
919-541-0562

From: Batusic, Mario [mailto:mario.batusic@fabasoft.com]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:09 AM
To: Urban, Mark (CDC/OCOO/OCIO/ITSO) <fka2@cdc.gov>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: AW: Accessibility part in development process

Hi Mark,
Thanks a lot for your contribution. Many things changed since, but these data can be taken as an orientation.

Ciao     Mario


Von: Urban, Mark (CDC/OCOO/OCIO/ITSO) [mailto:fka2@cdc.gov]
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. April 2017 14:46
An: Batusic, Mario <mario.batusic@fabasoft.com<mailto:mario.batusic@fabasoft.com>>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Betreff: RE: Accessibility part in development process

Hi Mario,

I did research in this area almost 14 years ago with Cynthia Waddell as part of the now-defunct ICDRI.  I can’t even find the paper anymore (we presented it at INET).

The short version of the findings: based on 6 projects in the State of North Carolina and in the City of San Jose, accessibility costs represented 3.75% of project costs, when “done right” - integrated  from project concept.  This accounted for all costs, including:


·         developer training costs (40% of actual, since this was considered a reusable investment),

·         testing tool investment (again 40% when the tool was considered reusable or enterprise),

·         additional development cost (ironically this was actually negligible – less than .3% of coding time when dev staff were trained on accessibility before coding started)

·         Additional testing and QA process time (I don’t have that specific number).

2 HUGE caution flags:

1.       This survey was done in the days when websites and web apps were hand-coded by onsite staff.  That rarely happens now, with Customizable Off the Shelf apps, contracted single-project staff,  and WYSIWIG tools that auto-generate code.  These changes make accessibility dependent on a number of factors outside of the project’s direct control.

2.       Project management has changed enormously from the “waterfall”  days of old, when specifications were exactingly crafted, and dev teams briefed long before a single line of code was written.  The iterative, rapid-development “agile” methodologies change the value and costing matrix for “nonfunctional requirements” such as accessibility.

If anyone has newer figures, I’d be very interested, as well.


Regards,
Mark D. Urban
CDC Section 508 Coordinator
fka2@cdc.gov<mailto:fka2@cdc.gov>
919-541-0562
(Note: this email is my opinion, and not an official communication from CDC)

From: Batusic, Mario [mailto:mario.batusic@fabasoft.com]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 5:34 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Accessibility part in development process

Hi All,

I had this week an introductory training on Web and Software Accessibility for project managers in my company (Fabasoft). They had an interresting question, that I was not able to answer:
What is the percentual part of accessibility in the Web development process:

  *   Consulting, monitoring and evaluating design process;
  *   Planing, executing and evaluation code development.
Can anybody help with pointing out to some research in this direction? Thanks in advance!
Mario


Mario Batusic
Fabasoft Cloud UI
Accessibility Coordinator
mario.batusic@fabasoft.com<mailto:mario.batusic@fabasoft.com>
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Fabasoft R&D GmbH
Honauerstraße 4, 4020 Linz, Austria
Tel.  +43 732 606162 -0
Fax. +43 732 606162 -609
www.fabasoft.com<http://www.fabasoft.com/>

Handelsgericht Linz, FN 190091x

[cid:image001.png@01D2BA80.FE1C1840]



image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 13:24:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 April 2017 13:24:24 UTC