Re: Business Case Slides

  Thanks for the comments, Vicki. Replies below with "SLH:".

With your permission, I am CCing the EO-Editors mailing list, which is publicly archived and has few subscribers. If there are any points that you would like input from EOWG, please feel free to send them to the main EOWG list: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org

(Andrew, a specific question for you below.)

On 6/7/2011 5:33 PM, Victoria Menezes Miller wrote:
> Dear Shawn,
>
> I have gone through the "*Web Accessibility is Smart Business*".  The presentation is excellent.
> I have the following comments and/or editorial suggestions:
>
> _Slide 7_ "Forrester Research, Inc."
> *Comment on Statistics*.
> I was wondering if there were any up-to-date statistics.
> Note:  WHO will launch their world report on June 9, 2011.  Perhaps, we might be able to get something out of it.
> http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/en/index.html

SLH: We don't know of other similar studies. The issue is that this is not simply statistics of people with disabilities, it is more broadly looking at who benefits from accessible technology. I deleted " (which was 74.2 million in the US in 2003)" so the date isn't as glaring anyway. Please do let us know if you find updated studies or statistics that would be better than this study showing 57%!

>
> _Slide 9_  "Aging Population, 65%"
> *Comment on Statistics*.
> Whilst  developed parts of the world are quoted, are there any statistics for possibly one developing nations stat?

SLH: Hum, interesting point to consider. We currently have: "Note to presenters: Customize with statistics relevant to your audience. Some other statistics available from "Web Accessibility for Older Users" Presentation available from www.w3.org/WAI/presentations/ageing/ "

*Andrew*: Your thoughts on this point?

> BTW, there seem to be some updated statistics at:
> http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm

SLH: Do you suggest using updated stats from there? If so, could you provide specific suggestions?

>
> _Slide 11_  "Graphics of different devices and situations"
> *Comment*
> Graphic 4 is not clear but I don't have another suggestion :(  .
> *Editorial Suggestion for notes for Image 5*
> Accessible websites work better for people in temporary disability situations, for example, someone who has broken an arm or simply misplaced their reading glasses.

SLH: Currently there is a photo of a person with a broken arm and the text is: "Accessible websites work better for people who break their arms, lose their glasses, or have other 'temporary disabilities'." I think there is benefit to leaving break arm first to tie into the photo. Also, one could say that misplacing glasses isn't a temporary disability - the low vision is a permanent minor disability and the glasses are the assistive technology. If you want to say what you didn't like about the current sentence, I'm happy to take an edit pass at it, or reconsider your suggestion.

>
> _Slide 12_  "Improves usability for all"
> *Two editorial changes in second paragraph notes:*
> 1. "Power users" often work faster ..
> instead of "Power users after often work faster ..."
> 2. All of these guidelines make websites work better
> instead of "All of these guidelines makes website work better ..."

SLH: Done.

>
> _Slide 14_ "Some basics"
> *Suggesion to change the wording in bullet point*
> "Don't cause seizures"
> Good and simple practical advice is given in this slide.  The above mentioned bullet point does not quite fit in. How should the audience interpret "Don't cause seizures"?

SLH: Changed to: "Don’t use content that causes seizures" (which is the wording from http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/ )

>
> _Slide 19_ "OK... but what does it cost"
> Suggestion to change the note on cost.
>
> "When a development team has accessibility experience and good tools, there is basically no additional cost except for services such as captioning.  If a site is being redesigned for compliance to accessibility, the cost will vary depending on the site and usually the amount will represent a small percentage of the overall website cost.
> /instead of:/
> When a development team has accessibility experience and good tools, the cost of making new and redesigned websites accessible is often a small percentage of the overall website cost.

SLH: Based on previous discussions in EOWG, people feel that there are additional costs beyond services such as captioning, even with an experiences team and good tools. Although the additional costs are small in most cases, there are always some additional costs in development and testing. Personally I'm a little uncomfortable with "compliance to accessibility" -- I prefer the focus to be on accessible to people (and compliance to standards is one way to demonstrate that). I'm happy to reconsider other wording if you would like to suggest it.

>
> _Slide 20, 21_:
> I've attached some draft slides for your reflection. I could not come up with a good graphic myself. I found a few on I-stock as follows:
> By the way, the photos on i-stock are good and there is a large variety, plus they are not expensive.
>
> *Coins:*
> http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16084189-golden-coins-isolated-on-white-background.php?st=1f40820
> http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-15722813-money.php?st=fbfa719
>
> *Money bags:*
> http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6665401-global-finance.php?st=6a7c929
>
> *Direct cost savings graphic:*
> http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9054801-piggybanks-increasing-in-size-clipping-path-included.php?st=1f40820
>
> *Suggested modification to slides. *
> - Keep the investment/time up/down graph indication

SLH: Done for now. We'll see what EOWG thinks.

> - Add a simple slide to cover the notes the speaker will have on the afore-mentioned slide.  I thought it would be important to add something about what is "free" and available.  That is always more enticing

SLH: Interesting idea. You have under free: Online testing tools, W3C resource material, Online web forums. I wonder what percentage of websites can get adequate coverage from free online testing tools? My feeling is only a small percentage; that most really need more robust tools. My experience is that a large percentage of people are uncomfortable posting questions to online forums. For one reason, their organization doesn't want to advertise that they lack expertise.

SLH: Given this is presentation is trying to "sell" accessibility, we wanted to keep the costs discussion a minor point. We want to acknowledge it, but not go into details. A presentation on managing accessibility could go into more details.

> - "Return from Accessibility" :  perhaps direct cost savings graphic from i-stock could fit in

SLH: I've tried adding a money tree. Let's see how that works. :-)

SLH: I'm not sure how compelling are Customer satisfaction and Professional standard-compliant site to some audiences. I'm tempted to leave it to the strongest and broadest two bullets on the slide itself: Increased revenue and Direct cost savings; leave the detailed examples in the notes; and I've amended the Notes to presenters to say: "Customize the bullet points and examples based on the audience, for example, use different examples if most of the audience works with educational institutions than if most work with online retailers." I think I'll also add a pointer to http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/fin for people to pick up more specific points that are relevant to their situation.

>
> _Slide 23:_  Transcripts for audio
> *Suggestion:*
> Could an image with a caption be added to the space on the right?

SLH: Do you mean an image of a video with caption? We could... however, given the costs of captions and the goal of this presentation, I don't know why we would want to?

>
> _Slide 26_:  OK! How do we do it?
> *Suggestion to note:*
> There is an opportunity for any investment
> instead of
> There is opportunity any investment...
>
SLH: Fixed to: There is opportunity for investment in accessibility to yield high returns.

> _Slide 27_:
> *Suggestion to promote ATAG:*
> Can "(ATAG)" be added to the bullet point on authoring tools?

SLH: Done.

Thanks again for your comments, Vicki!

Kind regards,
~Shawn

Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 00:44:11 UTC