WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: RFP Boilerplate for Accessibility

for

From: Jiatyan Chen
Date: Jan 29, 2019 10:59AM

Glen,

I apologise for only thinking about my use cases -- we mostly buy off-the-shelf products. Perhaps the language of the boilerplate needs to specify that it is RFP for new software development.

> On 28 Jan 2019, at 09:41, glen walker < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> Remove 2y experience requirement for the auditor.
>
> I'm curious why you would want to remove that requirement? Does that mean
> you'd be comfortable with an auditor that's only worked in the area for a
> few months?

I choose to trust a professional certification. What does an additional 2y get me? Why create a barrier to entry for newly certified professional? Does it count if they just sit on their certificate for 2y? I don't have good reason not to trust them, and thus can't make a 2y experience a requirement.

>> Limit the scope to the applicable functions of the app (rather than the entire app).
>>
> Not sure I follow that. The entire app needs to be accessible.

Products like SalesForce or PeopleSoft or WordPress comes with lots of parts and plug-ins, lots of which we do NOT use. There is no purpose in scoping the entire product when we only need 10%.

> The audit has to be done BEFORE the contract award.

Ok, so thinking only about software development work, the language to integrate accessibility validation into the design & development process looks idealist for a development contract. The suggested structure is too rigid for the template to gain wide adoption. I anticipate several problems during execution.
(1) It might be a lot of pro-bono work up-front for the auditor. Are we sure we can find auditors who can serve as a help desk for free? And why would the Agency pay for the auditor?
(2) The language seems inflexible regarding the time and appointment of an auditor. The auditor might not be identifiable by the start of the contract. What if the auditor changes?
(3) Why force the vendor to work with the Agency's auditor if they have perfectly good ones themselves. As long as the vendor can proof that they have a reasonable process and good practices in place, the audit can be separate from the development. It might also be perfectly fine for the vendor to provide proof of acceptance testing.

Lastly, as an agency, I would want some contractual language about post-delivery work to ensure compliance.

--
Jiatyan Chen